What Really Matters?

Essential Doctrine, Orthodoxy, and the Problem of Theological Compartmentalization

Introduction

Within contemporary Christianity, denominational distinctives—often the very doctrines that divide churches—are frequently categorized as “non-essential” for salvation. This practice raises several important theological questions. What doctrines, precisely, are considered essential to Christian faith? On what basis are such determinations made? And why do substantial disagreements persist among Bible-believing Christians, even concerning beliefs widely regarded as essential?

This essay examines a commonly used framework that categorizes Christian beliefs according to varying degrees of doctrinal importance. While such frameworks aim to promote unity and theological clarity, this study argues that they often introduce conceptual tensions, interpretive inconsistencies, and practical consequences that undermine their stated goals. Particular attention is given to doctrines identified as essential for historic Christian orthodoxy, especially eschatology, divine sovereignty, belief, and judgment.

1. Essential Doctrines: The Person and Work of Christ

Doctrines commonly identified as essential for salvation typically center on the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ. These include belief in Christ’s full deity and humanity, acknowledgement of personal sinfulness, affirmation of Christ’s atoning death and bodily resurrection, and the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation.¹ These beliefs form the theological core of historic Christian proclamation and are widely regarded as non-negotiable within orthodox Christianity.

2. Essential for Historic Christian Orthodoxy

A second category expands beyond the immediate requirements for salvation to include doctrines historically affirmed across Christian traditions. These beliefs, while sometimes distinguished from the first category, are nonetheless regarded as core or fundamental doctrines and therefore non-negotiable. They include Trinitarian theology as articulated at Nicaea, Christological orthodoxy as defined at Chalcedon, the inspiration and authority of Scripture, divine transcendence and immanence, divine sovereignty, the exclusivity of Christ, final judgment, and the future return of Christ.²

Despite their status as essential, these doctrines are frequently the subject of disagreement, revealing tensions within the category itself.

A. The Second Coming of Christ and Christian Practice

While most Christians affirm belief in the future return of Christ, substantial disagreement exists regarding the nature, timing, and structure of this event. Competing eschatological systems—including those that distinguish between a “rapture” and a subsequent Second Coming—have often produced division, confusion, or avoidance of the topic altogether.³

The importance of eschatology extends beyond speculative theology; it profoundly shapes Christian worldview and practice. Beliefs about the Parousia influence how Christians understand their role in the world while awaiting Christ’s return.

The biblical mandate often summarized as “occupy” (Luke 19:13, KJV) is better understood, in light of broader textual comparison, as an active commission to engage in productive labor.⁴ This interpretation is reinforced by parallel passages such as Matthew 25:14–30. Eschatological perspectives that emphasize imminent departure from the world risk fostering passivity, whereas others encourage cultural engagement, stewardship, and faithful witness.

Historically, repeated predictions concerning the end of the world—despite explicit biblical warnings against such speculation (Matt. 24:36; Acts 1:6–7)—have proven not only inaccurate but detrimental to Christian witness.⁵ The New Testament instead emphasizes the global proclamation of the gospel as the clearest indicator of the consummation of the age (Matt. 24:14).

B. Terminology and Interpretive Disputes

Theological disagreement is often exacerbated by inconsistent or undefined terminology. Concepts such as church, Israel, Bride of Christ, resurrection, and death are interpreted differently across traditions, making meaningful dialogue difficult. Eschatological frameworks, in particular, exert interpretive pressure on numerous other doctrinal topics, including judgment, reward, and salvation.

C. Divine Sovereignty

Belief in divine sovereignty is widely affirmed, yet sharply contested in definition. Does sovereignty entail exhaustive divine control over all events, or does it permit genuine human freedom within God’s governance? Divergent answers to this question have significant implications for doctrines of salvation, the origin of sin, and the character of God Himself.⁶

D. Faith, Belief, and Obedience

Similarly, the affirmation that Christ is the sole means of reconciliation with God raises the question of what constitutes genuine belief. Is belief merely cognitive assent, or does it necessarily involve transformed conduct? The relationship between faith and obedience remains a point of enduring theological debate.

E. Eternal Punishment and Final Judgment

Perhaps no doctrine in this category is more contested than the belief in eternal punishment. Disagreement centers not on the reality of judgment but on its nature. The primary division lies between eternal conscious torment and conditional immortality (annihilationism).⁷

This essay adopts the latter position, understanding death as the ultimate consequence of sin, consistent with Pauline language describing death as sin’s “wages” (Rom. 6:23). The debate underscores the importance of precise language, as biblical terms such as death, destruction, and punishment are variously interpreted.

3. Additional to the Essentials: Historic Orthopraxy

A third category includes beliefs historically associated with correct Christian conduct (orthopraxy). These encompass moral and ethical commitments such as humility, care for the poor, sexual ethics, stewardship, evangelism, and respect for the imago Dei, including opposition to abortion and gender reassignment procedures.⁸

In contrast to earlier periods of broad consensus, the contemporary church exhibits increasing fragmentation and silence on these matters. In many cases, positions once regarded as settled have been reclassified as negotiable or avoided altogether.

4. Essential for Traditional Orthodoxy

Distinctive beliefs associated with major Christian traditions—Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox—form a fourth category. Protestant distinctives include justification by faith alone, the primacy of Scripture, a defined canon, and affirmation of the early ecumenical councils.⁹

While Scripture is universally affirmed as authoritative, divergent interpretive frameworks—particularly those neglecting historical context—often lead to conflicting conclusions.

5. Essential for Denominational Orthodoxy

Denominational beliefs concerning baptism, election, charismatic gifts, and related doctrines are frequently considered sufficient grounds for local separation but not for the dissolution of Christian unity.¹⁰ In practice, however, such differences often function as barriers to fellowship.

6. Important but Not Essential

A final category includes beliefs commonly regarded as important yet non-essential, such as creation views, questions of authorship, eschatological models, liturgical practices, and translation preferences. Notably, some of these beliefs exert significant influence on doctrines classified as essential, calling the stability of such categorizations into question.

Conclusion: The Problem of Doctrinal Compartmentalization

Scripture itself does not divide doctrine into essential and non-essential categories. Instead, it consistently emphasizes sound doctrine and warns against the teachings of human origin (Matt. 15:9; Titus 2:1; 2 Tim. 4:3).¹¹ The danger of contemporary compartmentalization lies in equating non-essential with unimportant, leading to theological neglect and pastoral silence.

The proliferation of unbiblical ideologies within the modern church—ranging from New Age spirituality to secular moral frameworks—may be attributed, in part, to this silence. There remains a profound hunger for truth on difficult and controversial topics. When the church fails to address such subjects, other ideologies will slowly but surely seep in to fill the vacuum.

Endnotes

1.      1 John 4:2–3; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 15:3–4; John 3:16.

2.      Nicene Creed (325/381); Chalcedonian Definition (451).

3.      George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956).

4.      Luke 19:13; cf. Matthew 25:14–30.

5.      Matthew 24:36; Acts 1:6–7.

6.      Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), 387–420.

7.      Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011).

8.      Genesis 1:26–27; Matthew 25:31–46.

9.      Alister McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2020).

10.  “Essentials and Non-Essentials in a Nutshell,” Credo House.

11.  Matthew 15:9; Titus 2:1; 2 Timothy 4:3.

 

First published May 2024, revised December 2026 

Putting the Pieces Together

Toward the end of the Second Great Awakening in the nineteenth century, the church witnessed the emergence of several new religious movements—some of them making rather extraordinary claims. Among the most recognizable figures and movements from this period are Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science), Charles T. Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses), William Miller (Adventism), Ellen G. White (Seventh-day Adventism), Joseph Smith (Mormonism), and John Nelson Darby, who systematized and popularized dispensational theology along with the concept of a pre-tribulational rapture. Pentecostalism and several of its offshoots can also be traced to this general timeframe.

I was raised within one of these denominations, though I left it as a young man.

The church in question has its roots in the mid-1800s and grew out of what has come to be known as the Great Disappointment. This event refers to the experience of a group of nineteenth-century Millerites who became convinced—through their interpretation of biblical prophecy—that Christ would return on October 22, 1844. Their conviction was so strong that many gave away possessions and left crops unharvested, fully expecting the imminent return of the Lord.

When Christ did not return as predicted, the result was profound disappointment. Many adherents returned to the churches from which they had come, attempting to rebuild their lives. A smaller remnant, however, remained together, unwilling to concede error. Instead, they maintained that the date had been correct but that they had misunderstood the nature of the event itself.

Over time, as this remnant developed into an organized denomination, its theology also evolved. While many beliefs common to historic Christianity were retained, a number of distinctive and sometimes peculiar doctrines emerged. Central to this development was a strong emphasis on eschatology and the Second Advent. In fact, it can be said that the denomination’s views on the second coming became fixed early on, with subsequent theological beliefs forming around this core conviction.

I believe it is impossible to understand the points I wish to address without acknowledging this historical background. We are all shaped by our histories and circumstances, and this process is not unique to the denomination in which I was raised. Across Christianity, we find denominational distinctives and theological assumptions that are widely accepted and rarely questioned. In some cases, such views are read into Scripture rather than drawn from it.

I left my church in my early twenties. At the time, I did not realize how deeply its unique blend of end-times views, doctrinal distinctives, and theological assumptions had shaped my understanding of both the church and Christianity as a whole. I only began to recognize this many years later, after accepting the gospel message and systematically re-examining my earlier teachings in light of Scripture.

That vetting process continues to this day, particularly in areas I describe as “missing but unavoidable.” By this I mean doctrines that are not typically classified as essential for salvation yet remain both important and impossible to ignore. Many of the beliefs I was raised with fall into this category, differing significantly from positions held by most evangelical churches. Where possible, I feel compelled to examine these issues carefully, continually seeking greater scriptural clarity.

Recently I encountered a saying online: “If you continue to carry the bricks from your past, you will end up building the same house.” This resonated deeply with me. Having left the church of my youth, I effectively moved out of the old metaphorical house and wandered—“homeless”—for quite some time, unwilling to settle elsewhere. Eventually, however, I became ready to build again—but not to reconstruct the same uninhabitable structure I had abandoned.

At the same time, I have come to realize that not all the bricks from that old house should be discarded. Some are worth preserving. The challenge lies in discerning which bricks should be kept, which should be replaced, and what should take their place. That process must begin with the foundation, and the only solid foundation is biblical truth. The core beliefs of Christianity—the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of God, and Christ’s kingship—must form the footings. Secondary to these, yet still grounded in Scripture, are the teachings and doctrines that developed over time within the early church.

This is the puzzle I have been working through, to varying degrees, since returning to Christianity.

Missing but Unavoidable Questions

There is no broad, unanimous agreement within the church on many of these issues. As a result, such topics are often avoided or dismissed as secondary because they are not considered essential for salvation. Yet in some denominations these same topics are treated as doctrinally significant, making it impossible to simply set them aside.

Even when disagreements exist primarily at the individual level, they can still be divisive. Secondary or not, these matters are far from trivial. Scripture speaks to them, and they shape how individuals understand life, purpose, suffering, and what lies beyond death. I do not believe they can be ignored or handled carelessly without consequence.

So how should one proceed? It seemed reasonable to me that any firmly held belief—especially one newly encountered—should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. I had no desire to replace one erroneous belief with another. Any view rooted in long-standing assumptions or imposed interpretations must be tested against the actual text and context of Scripture. Where beliefs conflict with the scriptural data, the beliefs—not the text—must be reconsidered.

Although this approach appears rational, I was surprised by how frustrating it often proved to be. Many people claim openness until their own beliefs are questioned. Even those who profess to hold views loosely can respond defensively when those views are carefully examined. It is not uncommon for individuals to reject truth when it contradicts deeply held assumptions. For this reason, the journey can be a lonely one.

Heaven, Hell, and the Second Coming

What happens at the end of human life? Few questions are more unavoidable, and yet there is little agreement. Beliefs about death, heaven, hell, and what lies beyond the grave profoundly influence how people live. Churches’ positions on these matters shape their mission, priorities, and use of resources.

Regarding hell—specifically the notion of eternal conscious torment—I will address this and other related topics more fully in essays which follow this one. In brief, however, I reject the traditional view and instead affirm conditional immortality (often called annihilationism). According to this view, following final judgment, the wicked are judged, punished and destroyed. At that point, they will cease to exist. This understanding, I believe, aligns more faithfully with Scripture.

Many problematic views of both heaven and hell appear to have been influenced by lingering Neoplatonic and Gnostic ideas, especially the dualistic separation of soul and body. This influence is evident in the historical development of Christian theology, particularly through Augustine and later medieval thought.

I believe heaven is real. The confusion lies in when and how it relates to humanity. Do souls go there immediately? Is there a rapture? A millennium? If so, when? How does all of this relate to Christ’s promised return?

For a time, I embraced pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture theology. I studied it extensively, but over time I became increasingly dissatisfied. The system, in my view, fails to withstand close scrutiny of Scripture and relies heavily on assumptions imposed upon the text. Other millennial views have their own strengths and weaknesses, raising the question: are we allowing Scripture to speak for itself, or are we forcing it to fit our systems?

Eventually, I realized that belief in Christ’s return and in a New Heaven and New Earth does not require adherence to any of these systems. As Michael Heiser has noted, theological systems often end up controlling interpretation rather than serving it. Scripture must remain primary.

Creation, Redemption, and Restoration

From the beginning, God created humanity for life on earth. Humans were formed from the dust and animated by God’s breath, commissioned to steward creation and exercise dominion. Scripture consistently portrays God’s intention to unite heaven and earth—not to abandon one for the other.

Human rebellion introduced sin and death, affecting all creation. Yet this fall was anticipated, and God’s plan of redemption encompassed not only humanity but the entire cosmos. Creation has always been moving toward restoration, not abandonment.

Jesus entered history to repair what sin had broken. Through His life, death, resurrection, and ascension, He fully accomplished that mission. He has commissioned His followers to proclaim the gospel and He promised to return—not to evacuate the faithful, but to reign. At His return, the dead will be raised, the living transformed, judgment executed, and creation renewed. Heaven and earth will be made new and joined together, and Christ will reign forever.

Amen.

First published February 2023, revised December 2025 

What Church Is God’s Church? — Body of Christ

Many different metaphors have been used in reference to the church; with the term “Body of Christ” being one of the most frequently used.  During a morning devotional period not long ago, it occurred to me to consider all this term might include.  It seems to me that it does a lot more than simply describe how all the individual parts of a body should work together to perform their tasks in the service of the whole body.  I believe this metaphor can be useful for understanding more than just that one point.

In reference to the church as “the body,” the following link provides a very good summary from which many of the following points were taken:
http://www.gotquestions.org/body-of-Christ.html#ixzz3FSmtMxrD

“The phrase ‘the Body of Christ’ is a common New Testament metaphor for the Church (all those who are truly saved). The Church is called ‘one body in Christ’ in Romans 12:5, ‘one body’ in 1 Corinthians 10:17, ‘the body of Christ’ in 1 Corinthians 12:27 and Ephesians 4:12, and ‘the body’ in Hebrews 13:3. The Church is clearly equated with ‘the body’ of Christ in Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:24.”

It then lists several reasons why the Church may rightly be called the Body of Christ:

1. Members of the Body of Christ are joined to Christ in salvation (Ephesians 4:15–16).

2. Members of the Body of Christ follow Christ as their Head (Ephesians 1:22–23).

3. Members of the Body of Christ are the physical representation of Christ in the world. The Church is the organism through which Christ manifests His life today.

4. Members of the Body of Christ are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9).

5. Members of the Body of Christ possess a diversity of gifts suited to particular functions (1 Corinthians 12:4–31). “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts… so it is with Christ” (v. 12).

6. Members of the Body of Christ share a common bond with all other Christians, regardless of background, race, or ministry (1 Corinthians 12:25).

7. Members of the Body of Christ are secure in their salvation (John 10:28–30). For a Christian to lose salvation, God would have to perform an “amputation” on the Body of Christ.

8. Members of the Body of Christ partake of Christ’s death and resurrection (Colossians 2:12).

9. Members of the Body of Christ share Christ’s inheritance (Romans 8:17).

10. Members of the Body of Christ receive the gift of Christ’s righteousness (Romans 5:17).

Keeping the body metaphor in mind, a compelling observation emerges: when a body is healthy and functioning as intended, it can accomplish all it was designed to do. Psalm 139:14 describes the human body in these words: “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” The human body is indeed a complex and marvelous creation. Each component—down to the smallest microscopic cell—bears witness to this truth.

Yet we also know that human bodies sometimes fail. Systems break down, parts malfunction, and restoration or healing becomes necessary. The same, it seems, can be said of the church. When the body does not function as it should, dysfunction and disease result. Might there be parallels between physical illness and dysfunction within the church—the spiritual body of Christ?

Both the physical body and the church share the same Creator. When each functions properly, both reflect the One by whom we have been fearfully and wonderfully made. Yet we also know that when health fails, the body cannot function optimally—and sometimes cannot function at all.

One critical factor in physical health is communication. What happens when communication within the body is disrupted or ceases altogether? In researching this, I came across the following statement from the University of Utah Health Sciences Center:

“The cells in our bodies are constantly sending out and receiving signals… These are just a few ways in which cell communication can go wrong, resulting in disease. In fact, most diseases involve at least one breakdown in cell communication.”
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/badcom/

This is fascinating. If a breakdown in cellular communication contributes to most physical diseases, might the same be true of dysfunction within the church—the Body of Christ? Could breakdowns in communication lead to stagnation, dysfunction, or even atrophy within the spiritual body? These seem like questions worth serious consideration.

Although the church is composed of individuals and groups of individuals, Scripture affirms that we have been given everything necessary to function as one body. Consider points three and six above: the church is the organism through which Christ manifests His life to the world, and its members share a common bond regardless of background or ministry. “There should be no division in the body.” Unfortunately, it cannot be said that the church has consistently functioned this way. It is often here that divisions and dysfunction begin to emerge.

Today, Christianity is marked by numerous denominations and sects. Many divisions arise from differing interpretations of doctrine. Even within individual denominations, further differences in belief and practice exist. Given such diversity, how realistic is unity? How should legitimate interpretive differences be addressed? Perhaps greater effort must be made to understand both the scriptural basis and historical context behind differing views.

Complete freedom from disagreement would require perfect knowledge, perfect wisdom, and perfect discernment—qualities we simply do not possess. What we do have is God’s Word and the indwelling Holy Spirit, who guides believers into truth.

In the early church, when many came to Christ daily, it seems unlikely that new believers were immediately engaged in heated debates over obscure theological points. The message was simple: accept Jesus Christ—the risen Savior and King—and be saved. As the church grew, the need for sound doctrine became clear, and the apostles addressed errors as they arose. Paul’s letters, in particular, warn against teachings that threatened to distort the gospel. One such divisive issue was circumcision, addressed directly in Galatians.

I was raised in a tradition where doctrinal differences were viewed as critically important—important enough, at times, to jeopardize one’s salvation. Through conversations with others from different backgrounds, I have come to realize that this experience is not unique. Convinced that we were right and others mistaken, much energy was spent correcting the beliefs of other churches. Meanwhile, many who knew little about Jesus received far less attention. Too often, the focus was on refining the Christianity of others rather than sharing the gospel itself.

Rather than fostering unity within the Body of Christ, this emphasis on differences often reinforced division. I sometimes wonder whether this preoccupation with who is right, combined with resistance to fellowship and communication, might be one of the enemy’s most effective strategies for slowing the spread of the gospel. Could this mirror the way disease disrupts communication within the physical body? Scripture does warn that the devil is a deceiver who sows division wherever possible.

This line of thought brings to mind the parable in Matthew 13:24–30. The Message renders it as follows:

“God’s kingdom is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. That night, while his hired men were asleep, his enemy sowed thistles all through the wheat and slipped away before dawn. When the first green shoots appeared and the grain began to form, the thistles showed up, too.

“The farmhands came to the farmer and said, ‘Master, that was clean seed you planted, wasn’t it? Where did these thistles come from?’

“He answered, ‘Some enemy did this.’

“The farmhands asked, ‘Should we weed out the thistles?’

“He said, ‘No, if you weed the thistles, you’ll pull up the wheat, too. Let them grow together until harvest time. Then I’ll instruct the harvesters to pull up the thistles and tie them in bundles for the fire, then gather the wheat and put it in the barn.’”

What strikes me about this parable is that the wheat is not defined by the field in which it grows. Different plants coexist in the same field, and separation comes only at the harvest, based on the fruit produced. Applied personally, this suggests that I am a Christian not because of the denomination I attend, but because of Christ. My final outcome will not be determined by choosing the “right” church. As Matthew 7:20 reminds us, “You will know them by their fruits.”

When I speak of differing views and divisions, I want to be clear: I am not opposed to healthy discussion. On the contrary, thoughtful dialogue is essential for growth and understanding. I also believe there are core beliefs that define what it means to be Christian and that unite us as members of one body. When believers come together to pray, study Scripture, and seek God with open hearts, the Holy Spirit guides each to the place and role where they are meant to serve.

While I naturally gravitate toward those with whom I share much in common, I learned long ago that waiting for complete agreement would result in isolation. None of us is perfect, and no group possesses a complete or flawless understanding. We are called not to arrive at perfection, but to seek God. In this sense, we might resemble the Bereans of Acts 17, who searched the Scriptures daily—not because they always agreed, but because they earnestly sought truth together.

Finally, I believe it is vital for Christians to gather regularly rather than withdrawing into isolation because of disagreement. To worship as a “church of one” would represent the ultimate separation from the Body. Hebrews 10:25 exhorts us not to forsake assembling together, but to encourage one another—especially as the day approaches.

May God bless us all as we continue to seek Him.

 

originally written October 2014 - revised December 2025

 

Strange Theology – Two Peoples of God?

As was mentioned in Part 2, Dispensational Theology takes the position that Israel and the Church are distinct entities. It carries the conviction that although both have had special relationships with God, they are not essentially the same. Are the church and Israel distinct entities? If they are to be seen as distinct, when/where did the separation happen? If so, must God deal with them separately and at different/separate times? What might the historical record tell us about this topic?

In this essay, I plan to go a bit deeper into the topic of the proposed, “two peoples of God.” This modern dispensational idea stems from the theory of two kingdoms that J. N. Darby thought up… and then proposed while recovering from a horse-back riding accident in 1827. Of this theory, Darby himself would later claim that, “it was during this time that he recognized that the “kingdom” described in the Book of Isaiah and elsewhere in the Old Testament was entirely different from the Christian church.”

[https://turtlebunbury.com/document/john-nelson-darby/]

During his recovery (a period of time which some of his closest followers referred to as his, “intellectual and spiritual revolution,”) Darby concluded that the church had to be entirely distinguished from Israel. He said that Old Testament prophecies that seemed to describe the future of Israel should not be de-coded as allegorical predictions about the future of the church. With that theory firmly in mind, he then suggested that the future of the church was only revealed in the New Testament, and therefore the Old Testament really did refer to the future of the Jews.

The following quote can be found in a lecture called, “Dispensationalism, J. N. Darby and Powerscourt” by Angus Stewart.

“J. N. Darby called this separation between Israel and the church the “hinge upon which the subject [i.e. dispensationalism] and the understanding of Scripture turns.” Do you recall what John Calvin called the “hinge on which religion turns?” Justification by faith alone! The Christian faith turns on this gospel hinge.Darby makes the Bible turn on a dispensational hinge. In effect, he is saying, “Dispensationalism turns upon the distinction—nay, separation—between Israel and the church!”

According to dispensationalism, God does not have one great purpose in history or even in the eternal state. Instead, He has two main purposes: on the one hand, national Israel’s salvation with earthly, material blessings and, on the other hand, the Gentile church’s salvation with heavenly, spiritual blessings.

Which one of those two major purposes is more important for dispensationalism? It is Israel. Why? For dispensationalism, the church is only a “parenthesis,” a subordinate clause. The main clause in the dispensational sentence is the earthly nation of Israel. During the last 2,000 years, God has been uttering an extremely long subordinate clause (the church), but He will add a comma or semicolon and launch into the 1,007-year main clause at the secret rapture, when the church is taken out of the way and the Jews are restored to their rightful pre-eminence. Moreover, according to dispensationalism, the church is not even predicted or mentioned in the Old Testament!”

It’s from this new dispensational ideology that the term, “Replacement Theology,” has been hatched. This is a term that dispensationalists frequently apply to those who do not accept the two kingdom idea. I would suggest that it is a disparaging, divisive and destructive term... but is it true? Has Darby, in-fact, gotten it right… and does the church therefore need to change its’ majority position that it has held for 2000 years?

In the different gospel accounts of Jesus’ life and teaching, we see he spoke often of the Kingdom of God (sometimes called the Kingdom of Heaven – but meaning the same thing). On various occasions he also spoke of Israel and, he spoke as well about his “ekklēsia.” This word, sometimes translated as “church,” means something like assembly, “popular assembly” or gathering and it is sometimes used in reference to a congregation of “the children of Israel.” So can we determine anything with how scripture handles these various terms?

Dispensationalists say the church represents a pause or parenthesis in prophetic history. They say the pause began with the Jews rejecting and then crucifying the Messiah. The pause, they say, will continue through the “church age” until the rapture. At that time they say, the prophecy time clock will resume. However, nowhere in the Bible do we see any direction to insert such a pause.

The gospels tell us, in fact, that Jesus spoke of his “church” before he was rejected and crucified by his own people. I think it important to note that Jesus gave us the New Covenant at the Passover meal (which he had with his followers) and this occurred before his rejection and crucifixion. This “Last Supper” was where Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” In terms of timing – the New Covenant was declared during Passover, which was one of Judaism's most revered holidays. When Jesus spoke about building his ekklēsia, it was to say that it would prevail against the very gates of Hell. He made mention of this to his Jewish followers who would then be the ones to begin carrying this Kingdom message forward to all nations of the earth, as part of the commission he gave them.

It is clear that the New Covenant Jesus gave (at the final meal before his crucifixion) replaced the Old Covenant. Hebrews 8:7-13 makes this clear:

“For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.”

Now lets look at Acts 1 and the unfolding events that lead up to the “early church.” Perhaps somewhere within the first couple chapters of Acts we can find such a division creating two peoples of God… and along with that, the need for a pause. In Acts 1:3 we are told that during the 40 days since his resurrection, Jesus had been “speaking of things regarding the kingdom of God.” Now, as he is preparing to leave them, the disciples proceed to ask him, “Lord, is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” It seems they understand the “Kingdom of God” that Jesus speaks of, to be the same as the kingdom of Israel.

Jesus quickly disabuses them of that idea and says, “It is not for you to know periods of time or appointed times which the Father has set by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and as far as the remotest part of the earth.” The geography he is outlining here is the Kingdom he is speaking about. Jesus is telling them (as he did in his “Great Commission” directive) that they are to spread the good news of the Kingdom… from Jerusalem, through Judea, on through Samaria and to the furthermost reaches of the earth.

Jesus had much to say about the nation of Israel and the fate it would face within the lifetime of that very generation. He said their great temple would be completely destroyed with not one stone left standing upon another. Facing rejection from his own people, and knowing what would soon happen, was the source of great sorrow for him as he wept over Jerusalem and went on to prophesy its’ complete destruction. However, despite its’ many failings, the people of Israel had brought to the world the promised seed of Abraham and all the prophecies concerning the Messiah had been fulfilled.

How about Acts chapter two? The majority of Evangelicals believe this is where we find the beginning of the church – here on the day of Pentecost. Well… what we find first is a group of approximately 120 followers (Jewish) gathered together in Jerusalem. They are filled with the Holy Spirit and begin speaking in all the languages of those (“devote” Jews) who had been visiting in Jerusalem. They had come to Jerusalem, from all the surrounding nations, for their Passover Holiday, because of Hebrew law. It is here Peter gives his first sermon and about 3000 Jewish souls are convicted, repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus. When they return to their home countries (and many of them will be doing just that), they will be bringing this Christian, gospel message with them.

Peter ends his sermon and verse 40 records: “And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on urging them, saying, ‘Be saved from this perverse generation!’”In the gospel of Luke, Jesus made reference to, “this generation” when he spoke and warned of the destruction that was to come to Jerusalem in general and the temple in particular. Here in Acts we have another reference to “this generation” – in this case it includes the descriptor “perverse.” Personally, I see no reason to view this as anything other than a reference to the generation present at the time the message was being given. From what we know from history, that generation living in Jerusalem and Judea, would soon suffer severe devastation – but those Christians that heeded the warning, and left Jerusalem, did escape safely.

We know through all those early years of Christianity, this small but growing group of Christians (ekklēsia), was not seen as separate from Judaism or Israel; rather, it was seen as a small but growing sect of Jews often known as, “the Way.” This group of Christ followers were often the target of persecution – but not from the Romans – from other Jews. An example of one such person, persecuting the early church, was the zealot Saul. After his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, Saul was to became the Apostle Paul.

Just before the Romans conquered Jerusalem and completely destroyed the temple in 70 A.D., there was a brief window of opportunity for Christians to flee the city. This window (between 69 A.D. and 70 A.D.) opened when Vespasian returned to Rome and his son Titus laid siege to Jerusalem. In Luke 21:20-24, Jesus had warned of this very time:

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are inside the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; because these are days of punishment, so that all things which have been written will be fulfilled. Woe to those women who are pregnant, and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land, and wrath to this people; and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

It appears those who heeded the warning, did as they had been warned to do and they fled. It is thought that the city fell on September 7, 70 AD (although some sources say it happened September 26). This event marked the end of Jerusalem as a center of Christianity while the Gospel of the Kingdom continued spreading throughout all the surrounding nations.

During the week when Jesus came back to Jerusalem to face his betrayal and crucifixion, we read the story of Jesus cursing the fig tree. This story appears in Matthew and Mark and is told as a miracle. In the Gospel of Luke, it's presented as a parable. The fig tree was an Old Testament symbol for Israel and the story has symbolic meaning. There are different interpretations concerning the story with some saying that Jesus cursing the fig tree was meant to be a warning to the religious leaders of Israel. Others say the story is used as a way of pointing to the judgment that God would bring on Jerusalem.

The following quote is from the BibleProject, Jesus on the Cursed Tree, Episode 9, March 2, 2020:

Mark 11:13-14 Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if perhaps he would find anything on it; and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the time for figs. He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again!”

…the fig tree is a symbol for something more. Israel is also compared to fig trees in Jeremiah 8 and Micah 7. Jeremiah 8:12-13 “At the time of their punishment they shall be brought down,” Says the Lord. “I will surely snatch them away,” declares the Lord; “There will be no grapes on the vine And no figs on the fig tree, And the leaf will wither; And what I have given them will pass away.”

Micah 7:1-2, 4 What misery is mine! I am like one who gathers summer fruit at the gleaning of the vineyard; there is no cluster of grapes to eat, none of the early figs that I crave. The faithful have been swept from the land; not one upright person remains…. The day when you post your watchmen, Your punishment will come.

Jeremiah compares Israel to a fruitless fig tree, and Micah describes Israel’s lack of faithful people as failing to find early figs. All of this imagery plays into this moment when Jesus curses the fig tree, and his disciples see the result the next morning. Mark 11:19-23 When evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city. In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!” “Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them.” The cursed fig tree is connected to Jesus’ actions in the temple. God was bringing a just judgment on Jerusalem for becoming a false Eden. A few days later, Jesus confronts the root of corruption itself in a garden on a high place.”

Within that current generation, along with the growing body of faithful Jewish followers we begin to see some Gentile believers joining the ever expanding body. The first Gentile convert is the Ethiopian eunuch that was baptized by Philip. Soon after Peter was instructed by God, in a vision, to share the gospel with Cornelius. Peter did as instructed and as he shared the gospel, the Holy Spirit fell on those listening and they spoke with tongues exalting God. Subsequent to this, Cornelius, and all those that heard the message with him, were baptized.

Acts 10:34-35 records the opening remarks of Peter’s message:

“Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him.”

Midway through the first century we begin to see more and more non-Jewish converts coming from the other nations in the surrounding area. With this influx of Gentile converts, the church (which was still predominately Jewish) had to deal with a number of divisive issues that kept coming up within the larger and growing Christian body. Large portions of the New Testament contain, in addition to statements on doctrine, direction on how such divisions were to be addressed and problems solved. There was NEVER a desire for such division in the Body of Christ – the people of God. The expressed desire throughout scripture was always that they all remain united in Christ.

Even before his crucifixion, Jesus spoke clearly on what was important for salvation and it never was about your nationality or who you descended from. See the following as just a few examples:

Luke 3:8, “Prove by the way you live that you have repented of your sins and turned to God. Don’t just say to each other, ‘We’re safe, for we are descendants of Abraham.’ That means nothing, for I tell you, God can create children of Abraham from these very stones.” (New Living Translation)

John 8:39-47: “They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.”

They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him.

When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

The apostle Paul often spoke on this in his letters and I’ll quote just a couple passages:

Galatians 3:5-9 & 27-29: Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith — just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.”

27 “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”

There are many passages similar to those I’ve quoted and I have no intention to include them all here in this short discussion. I have seen nothing in scripture that states or indicates there was to be some kind of division that would result in two peoples of God. If such a process is in there, I would like very much if someone would show me what I’ve missed.

Mystery of the church:

When I hear Christians insisting there are two peoples of God and that the church is distinct from the Israel of God, I am forced to wonder just what their understanding is of the church. Is it somehow a new institution or was it more about a change in covenants, which Jesus was about to bring about through his followers? The word we’ve translated into English as “church,” is the Greek word, “ekklēsia” and it simply means assembly or gathering – it is not a word unique to the New Testament. At various times Israel or groups within the Hebrew community were referenced by the same term.

The following Quote is from, “The Church in the Old Testament,” Systematic Theology Type: Ancient Church, Glorious Bride of Christ Series, Historical Studies:

“…Now some might disagree, arguing that we don’t find the word church in the Old Testament, and they would be correct, but only for the English. The Greek word that is translated as church is ekklēsiaand is used in the New Testament for a specific gathering of Christians, or for all believers together. The same word, ekklēsia, is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, to translate the Hebrew term qāhāl, “assembly.” It is used for Israel as they gathered together to appear before God or as a general reference to all of Israel. Another Greek word used to translate qāhāl is sunagōgē. It is also used to translate another word for Israel: ‘ēdâ, “congregation.” In the New Testament sunagōgē is most often used of a synagogue or its members, but is used for a gathering of Christians in James 2:2. The terms used in the New Testament for the church are not new ones but are rooted in the Old Testament. Thus, in at least some sense, Israel really was the Old Testament church-assembly-congregation!

And yet, we could say that the church stretches back further, even before Israel. The church includes Abraham who was summoned out of the nations (Gen 12:1), the line of Seth who called upon the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26), and Adam and Eve who embraced God’s first gospel message (Gen 3:15). The church could even include Adam and Eve as created in perfection to dwell in God’s presence, but we will not pursue that now.”

The Heidelberg Catechism was drawn up in 1563. I mention it here not to promote a particular theology but because it clearly reflects a much older church view. The same article just quoted above says this about the Heidelberg Catechism in Q&A 54:

“‘Q. What do you believe concerning ‘the holy catholic church’? A. I believe that the Son of God, through his Spirit and Word, out of the entire human race, from the beginning of the world to its end, gathers, protects, and preserves for himself a community chosen for eternal life and united in true faith. And of this community I am and always will be a living member.” As we think about what the Heidelberg is teaching, it is helpful to remember that we can speak about the church in two ways. The Heidelberg is speaking of what we usually call the invisible church, those “chosen for eternal life” – the elect. But as we think of the church in the Old Testament, we are usually thinking about the visible church, the various gatherings of the covenant community in different times and places. The Bible makes clear that these gatherings can include not only the elect but also those who profess with their mouth but not with their heart.”

When searching for “the Mystery of the Church,” Ephesians 3:1-13 is the passage one most often will reference. This passage makes it clear that this mystery was made known to him by revelation and “was not made known to the sons of men in other generations.” It contains Paul’s insight into the mystery of Christ.

Verses 6 & 9-11 then read:

“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…

…and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,…”

Early in the history of the New Testament Church, we read in Acts 15 of a division and conflict that was brewing within the church. Some of the Jews were insistent that Gentile Christians should follow Jewish law. Verse 5 puts it this way, “Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.’”

The apostles and elders met to consider this question in what is often referred to as, “The Council of Jerusalem.” In that council they decided that Gentile Christians were not required to follow most of the Mosaic Law, including circumcision and dietary laws. Verses 19-21 read:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

It is clear here that Gentiles were being admitted into fellowship (grafted in – as it were) and that the purpose here is having the Gentiles turn to God. It is presumed that the Jews in this assembly had already accepted Jesus and turned to God.

In Matthew 16:18, When Jesus said he would build his [ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia)] and the gates of hell would not overpower it, he had a purpose in mind – a purpose which I believe gets missed or simply overlooked. As I’ve already pointed out, the original Greek word that is used in the text – ekklēsia, has been translated in our English Bibles as “church. The decision to use the word “church” carries certain consequences with respect to how this passage might come to be understood by an English audience. An important question that must be considered has to do with the original intent of the writer, and with his audience’s ability to understand him. So, has the message been made clear to his audience? I believe it has.

Even translating the word as “assembly” or “gathering,” while closer to the meaning, may not capture all that is being said in this pronouncement of Jesus. Apparently the word ekklesia comes from the Greek words ‘ek’ and ‘kaleo,’ which together mean “a calling out” and it can be used in a variety of ways to mean different things. So how would Jesus have intended his words to be understood and how would those first listeners (Jewish) understand it?

In the New Testament it can mean the congregation of the children of Israel, as used in Acts 7:37-38. Here Stephen is giving his speech before the Jewish leaders before he is subsequently stoned to death. In the passage he is speaking here, he is referring to the time during the Exodus when Moses received the law at Mount Sinai. The passage reads:

“This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.’ This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us.”

We can also translate that same phrase, “the congregation in the wilderness” as “church” …in fact the King James Version actually does. Here is the passage from the KJV:

“This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:”

During his time on earth, Jesus spoke frequently about “the Kingdom.” In the “Great Commission” he gave his followers, he told them to, “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit….” A short time prior to this he had also made another reference to the nations when he said that the, “gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”

So here’s the question: when Jesus spoke of building his ekklēsia, when he said the gospel of the kingdom would be preached to all nations, and when he said to his followers to make disciples of all nations, was he speaking of the same thing in each case? Would those hearing his message understand he was speaking about the same thing? Should we be viewing this in the same way; or were we supposed to wait about 1800 years to understand there were some distinctions and differences …subtle nuances …that were missed until J.N Darby came along to interpret scripture with fresh eyes?

One other thing I wondered about – since Jesus spoke so often about “the Kingdom” and his commissions involved “the nations,” could the word ekklēsia also have a political meaning? As it turns out, it can and does. Merriam-webster.com lists several definitions for the word –one of which is church – but the #1 definition is:

“a political assembly of citizens of ancient Greek states

especially : the periodic meeting of the Athenian citizens for conducting public business and for considering affairs proposed by the council”

Now, the first mention of nations in the Bible is in Genesis 10, the so called, “Table of Nations” and then in Genesis 11 we are told of Babel the confusion of tongues and dispersal of nations over the earth. God’s intention was never to leave the nations in such a state but to one day restore that which he had set out to create in the beginning. He put Israel in place to be a kingdom of priests and a light to the nations. Through them was to come the promised one through whom all the nations would be blessed and promises fulfilled.

Chosen People:

It is very difficult to have any discussion – about a subject such as Israel and the idea of a chosen people –without clarity as to what we are talking about. Just what does that concept mean? Israel was indeed chosen… so the obvious questions are:

Was Israel chosen for a purpose?

If they were chosen for a purpose, what was it?

Are we to interpret the term, “chosen” to mean something like “favourite?”

I think we also need to define and understand what is meant by “Israel.” It is clear to me that there seems to be a lack of understanding and agreement about that term.

So, the first question is, “Why is there Israel and what about Israel is special?” Most dispensationalists will go back to Genesis 12 (story about the covenant with Abram) and focus mainly on verses 1-3.

“Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’”

Clearly this is important. The story does not begin there however; and I think we need to understand some of the backstory and timing of this first meeting.

Very briefly, what’s going on is this: In the preceding chapter of Genesis, we read the story of the “Tower of Babel.” Because of their disobedience, God had just confused the languages of the people and divided the nations – scattering them over the earth. He had a plan to build a nation of his own and this would be through a grandson of Abram – Israel (Jacob). It would be through a seed of Abram that all nations of the earth would be blessed. This would be the Messiah and through Him, the nations would ultimately become one again in the Kingdom of God.

[**Note: I’ve done a much deeper dive to support the statements I’ve made in this brief explanation of God’s call on Abram and the Children of Israel as God’s chosen people. Please see “Notes for reference and further study]⁽¹¹⁾

The following points are taken from the article, “Why Did God Choose Israel to Be His Chosen People?”:

• “Throughout the Bible, the Israelites are referred to as God’s chosen people.…

• …you might wonder why did God choose Israel to be his chosen people? I mean what is so special about Israel that makes them different from any other nation? The term itself might make it seem as if God surveyed all the nations of the earth and said, that is the one I will choose. That is not exactly how it happened but the fact that they are referred to as God’s chosen people forces you to ask the question why did God choose Israel to be his chosen people?”

• “One of the reasons why God chose Israel to be his chosen people is because he needed someone to uphold his standards in the earth. One of God's purposes for Israel was that they would be a people who would obey him and keep his covenants....”

• ...The final point to answer the question of why did God choose Israel, and without a doubt the most important purpose for the nation of Israel, is that God was setting up the lineage for which Jesus would come through. This really is the crux of why God chose Israel to be his chosen people. The coming of Jesus fulfilled a major promise that God made to Abraham that everyone on this planet who is living, who will live, or who has ever lived can benefit from....

• …When God called Abraham in Genesis 12, he had Revelation 12 in mind. He didn’t just have one nation in mind, he had all the nations of the world in mind. He chose Abraham, built a nation out of him, which bridges the gap to Jesus. In Jesus, we see the fulfillment of this promise in Genesis, and we understand the result of this promise in Revelation. Notice that people from every nation, every tribe, every language, every people will one day gather around the throne and worship the lamb. I think it is safe to say this is an example of all the people on earth being blessed through the seed of Abraham.”

The following quote is from the article, “Did God Choose Israel and Not the Other Nations?” by Dr. Mark Bailey:

In a world darkened by sin and chaos, God chose Israel to be a light to the nations. They were called to be a kingdom of priests who were to reflect God’s character to all nations. Through Israel, neighboring peoples or nations discovered what obedience to God would bring and also what would follow as a result of their disobedience. God chose Israel to be a people who would showcase both His redeeming grace and righteous judgment.

In Isaiah 42:6-7, God revealed His character in this declaration to Israel: “I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.”

And again, in Isaiah 49:6, “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

This quote is taken from, The Bible Project in an article called, “Who has God chosen?”

“Israel is not chosen for salvation but for a purpose. They are called to display who Yahweh is to all the nations, so that all would come to know and worship the one true God. Salvation to the nations was not plan B. It was God’s mission all along.’”

Israel Then and Now:

Having covered the when, where, and why of the call on Abraham; and having looked at the call that was placed on Israel, there are just a couple more points I’d like to consider. Along with the call, certain promises were made and thus must be considered. Let’s consider those promises along with any conditions that might apply and then look at how they might apply today.

The promises passed on to the Children of Israel: ⁽¹²⁾

According to the Bible, the Israelites' possession of, and presence in, the Promised Land was conditional upon their obedience to God. The meaning of this was made clear by Moses and the Levitical priests before they entered the Promised Land. They were expected to follow God’s laws and live righteously, or risk losing the land if they disobeyed. The Land essentially served as a gauge of their faithfulness to their covenant with God, and it was made very clear that disobedience would result in exile and loss of the land.

Deuteronomy 27:9, “Then Moses and the Levitical priests said to all Israel, “Be silent, Israel, and listen! You have now become the people of the Lord your God. Obey the Lord your God and follow his commands and decrees that I give you today.”

What then follows is a list of twelve curses attached to any disobedience of each of twelve commands. After each command and curse, the people were to give their agreement by saying, “Amen.”

Chapter 28 begins with a condition and is followed by a list of blessings:

“If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. All these blessings will come on you and accompany you if you obey the Lord your God:”

Verses 3-14 then list in detail numerous blessings God would bestow upon them because of their belief and obedience. Verse 9 is especially noteworthy: “The Lord will establish you as his holy people, as he promised you on oath, ifyou keep the commands of the Lord your God and walk in obedience to him.”

Verses 58-68 contain a list of curses that would befall them if they failed to believe and obey God. This is part of the covenantal relationship. Verses 63-68 read as follows:

“If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the Lord your God— the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. He will bring on you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you. The Lord will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed. You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the Lord your God.

Just as it pleased the Lord to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess.

Then the Lord will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your ancestors have known. Among those nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There the Lord will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart. You will live in constant suspense, filled with dread both night and day, never sure of your life. In the morning you will say, “If only it were evening!” and in the evening, “If only it were morning!”—because of the terror that will fill your hearts and the sights that your eyes will see. The Lord will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.”

Leviticus 26:1-13 Lists rewards the Israelites would receive for their obedience to the Lord. The list is very similar to the one cited above from Deuteronomy 28:3-14. Next, in Leviticus 26:14-39 the punishments for disobedience are listed. The list appears to have the feel of progressive discipline with each level becoming more severe and intense.

The punishments make the covenantal conditions clear. The punishment warnings begin with verses 14 & 15 stating: “But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant….” This is followed by a description of the punishments. Sadly, it appears that this first list will not suffice to bring the people permanently back into line.

Further warning therefore seem necessary and verse 18 begins with: “If after all this you will not listen to me…” followed by further, more severe warnings. This in turn is followed by verse 21, “If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me…” and even more severe warnings! Still, further warnings are needed and verse 23 begins: “If in spite of these things you do not accept my correction but continue to be hostile toward me…” followed by a listing of further punishments.

Verses 27-35 then reads:

“‘If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you.I will turn your cities into ruins and lay waste your sanctuaries, and I will take no delight in the pleasing aroma of your offerings.I myself will lay waste the land, so that your enemies who live there will be appalled.I will scatter you among the nations and will draw out my sword and pursue you. Your land will be laid waste, and your cities will lie in ruins.Then the land will enjoy its sabbath years all the time that it lies desolate and you are in the country of your enemies; then the land will rest and enjoy its sabbaths. All the time that it lies desolate, the land will have the rest it did not have during the sabbaths you lived in it.

The chapter doesn’t end there but makes room for repentance and reconciliation which can be found in verses 40-46.

“‘But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their ancestors—their unfaithfulness and their hostility toward me, which made me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies—then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin, I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. For the land will be deserted by them and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them. They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees. Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the Lord.’”

These are the decrees, the laws and the regulations that the Lord established at Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelites through Moses.”

The old covenant, established with Israel contained promises and blessings for their obedience; it also contained judgments and curses for disobedience and turning away from God. There is no question that Israel did experience both sets of consequences (blessings and cursings) as they journeyed to Canaan and also after they took possession of the land. The judgments they brought on themselves, at various times, were exactly as spoken to them in their covenantal relationship. The worst of those judgments and their expulsion from the land occurred during the Jewish–Roman wars between 66 AD and 136 AD.⁽¹²⁾

The State of Israel Today:

I think one important consideration to which one must give some serious thought, in any discussion about the State of Israel as it exists today is, “Is this the same Israel that we read about in scripture?” Does the fact that they bear the same name mean they are the same thing? I don’t think this is a simple yes/no kind of question that one might ask to a random group of self-identifying Christians. Most would likely simply answer out of what they had learned as a child; or had come to believe based on what they had heard or been taught… and therefore assumed it to be the case. However, any claims (either for or against) should be viewed in light of what Scripture actually says.

I’ve already looked at the promises and covenants that God made as He established His people – and the purpose for which He established them. I’ve also referred to passages listing conditions, including blessings and cursing, rewards and punishments. The Bible also speaks of repentance and reconciliation that was provided for if Israel broke their covenantal relationship.

We know Israel did fail to meet their conditions from time to time and we know what punishments resulted when they did so. We also see the forgiveness God granted when they did repent and were reconciled. When the Old Covenant was ended by Jesus the Messiah, and a New Covenant was declared by Him, they accepted neither. Soon after their rejection of him, the destruction Jesus predicted fell upon them – within the time period of that generation.

So the question now is, “Have the conditions, under which the diaspora might end and reconciliation happen, been met? I would like to take a look at a passage telling us what Moses stated to the Children of Israel before they entered the promised land. I am looking here at Deuteronomy 29 and 30.

First Moses reviews the Covenant after summoning all the Israelites. He reinforces all that they have seen and experienced throughout the whole Exodus experience – starting with Pharoh and the forty years in the wilderness. He stresses that God has been faithful the whole time and in every way. He points out how, with the Lord as their God, they have triumphed over the enemies that faced them. And then in verses 9-15 it is recorded:

“Therefore, obey the terms of this covenant so that you will prosper in everything you do. All of you—tribal leaders, elders, officers, all the men of Israel—are standing today in the presence of the Lord your God. Your little ones and your wives are with you, as well as the foreigners living among you who chop your wood and carry your water. You are standing here today to enter into the covenant of the Lord your God. The Lord is making this covenant, including the curses. By entering into the covenant today, he will establish you as his people and confirm that he is your God, just as he promised you and as he swore to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

“But you are not the only ones with whom I am making this covenant with its curses. I am making this covenant both with you who stand here today in the presence of the Lord our God, and also with the future generations who are not standing here today….”

Verses 19-21:

“Those who hear the warnings of this curse should not congratulate themselves, thinking, ‘I am safe, even though I am following the desires of my own stubborn heart.’ This would lead to utter ruin! The Lord will never pardon such people. Instead his anger and jealousy will burn against them. All the curses written in this book will come down on them, and the Lord will erase their names from under heaven. The Lord will separate them from all the tribes of Israel, to pour out on them all the curses of the covenant recorded in this Book of Instruction.”

Verses 25-29:

“…‘This happened because the people of the land abandoned the covenant that the Lord, the God of their ancestors, made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt. Instead, they turned away to serve and worship gods they had not known before, gods that were not from the Lord. That is why the Lord’s anger has burned against this land, bringing down on it every curse recorded in this book. In great anger and fury the Lord uprooted his people from their land and banished them to another land, where they still live today!’

“The Lord our God has secrets known to no one. We are not accountable for them, but we and our children are accountable forever for all that he has revealed to us, so that we may obey all the terms of these instructions.

Continuing on to Deuteronomy 30:1-5 we see the following – which are conditions for reconciliation:

“In the future, when you experience all these blessings and curses I have listed for you, and when you are living among the nations to which the Lord your God has exiled you, take to heart all these instructions.If at that time you and your children return to the Lord your God, and if you obey with all your heart and all your soul all the commands I have given you today, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes. He will have mercy on you and gather you back from all the nations where he has scattered you. Even though you are banished to the ends of the earth, the Lord your God will gather you from there and bring you back again.The Lord your God will return you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will possess that land again. Then he will make you even more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors!

It seems clear therefore that the Lord has made provision for reconciliation that would also end the banishment “to the ends of the earth.” This would be based on their whole hearted repentance and obedience to the Lord God. Is this in any way reflective of what happened in the events immediately preceeding May 14,1948?

The history of the founding of the nation state of Israel in 1948 is quite well documented and there is no need to detail it here. Instead, I’d like to consider a few other facts and details.

• 1. Christian Zionism predated Political Zionism by a considerable period of time.

• 2. A major impetus behind the movement is the belief that the Jews’ return will lead to the Second Coming of Jesus. Many believe that by encouraging the Jews to return to Palestine, they can facilitate the return of Jesus. [This seems contrary to Jesus’ own command to Go; spread the gospel to all nations and then the end will come]

• 3. Christian Zionists also believe that by blessing and supporting Israel, considered both as the collective Jewish people and the modern state, they themselves will be blessed by God.

• 4. Since the formation of Israel as a Jewish state in 1948, American Evangelicals who subscribe to the movement have combined their theological convictions with strong political advocacy.

• 5. In England, Cromwell was inspired in part by a belief that conversion of Jews to Christianity would expedite the Second Coming. Puritans in New England in the mid-17th century also believed that Jews would eventually return to a homeland in Palestine as part of the end-time.

• 6. A significant driving force behind the rise of early Christian Zionism in the 19th century and since is the concept of dispensationalism, a reading of the Bible popularized in America by Anglo-Irish minister John Nelson Darby.

[***Note: Points 2-6 above, are taken from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christian-Zionism]

• “Motivated by a biblical messianic faith and the belief that a Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel was a necessary stage in the preparation of the way for the return of Jesus of Nazareth to earth, Christian Zionists have, at times, been more enthusiastic than Jews over the prospect of a Jewish state.” Taken from “An Unexpected Alliance: Christian Zionism and its Historical Significance”

The political Zionism movement began as a secular nationalist movement (certainly not in accordance with the conditions seen in Deuteronomy 30:1-5) – nevertheless we find:

• It began as a response to rising antisemitism and the broader rise of nationalism and nation-state political forms, with Theodor Herzl considered its founder. Herzl did not believe in God or Judaism.

(https://www.miftah.org/Doc/Factsheets/Other/Oct23a2k2.html#:~:text=Theodor%20Herzl%2C%20many%20now%20forget,19th%20century%20Europe%2C%20particularly%20Germany.)

• The horror of the Nazi Holocost saw the extermination of six million Jews and brought into focus the need for a means to address the rising tide of anti-Semitism and to establish the means of preventing their complete extermination.

• Zionism emerged as a proposed solution to the question of how and whether Jews could be integrated into their European host societies, or what they should do if assimilation was not possible.

• "The founding concepts of Zionism were not Judaism and tradition, but anti-Semitism and nationalism. The ideals of the French Revolution spread slowly across Europe, finally reaching the Pale of Settlementin the Russian Empireand helping to set off the Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment. This engendered a permanent split in the Jewish world, between those who held to a halachic or religious-centric vision of their identity and those who adopted in part the racial rhetoric of the time and made the Jewish people into a nation. This was helped along by the wave of pogromsin Eastern Europe that set two million Jews to flight; most wound up in America, but some chose Palestine. A driving force behind this was the Hovevei Zionmovement, which worked from 1882 to develop a Hebrew identity that was distinct from Judaism as a religion."(***Note: “LeVine, Mark; Mossberg, Mathias (2014). One Land, Two States: Israel and Palestine as Parallel States. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-95840-1.”)

Israel was established as a secular state and its leaders, (as the nation state was established) were primarily secular –though some had personal religious views. Ben-Gurion's immediate successors in the state's first three decades – Moshe Sharett, Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir, and Yitzhak Rabin – were all secular and socialist. It is said they participated in religious rituals only at their own funerals.

Since that nation state has been established, those on the religious side of the question (both religious Jews and Christians [largely dispensational]) have invested heavily in its’ continued growth and presence. They do so, hopeful of seeing their view of prophecy realized. Hundreds of billions of dollars, along with military support, have been poured into the state of Israel by governments such as the US acting under pressure from Zionist influence and interests. Christian Zionist groups have also contributed multi-billions of dollars as well; all (it seems) to fully establish “Biblical Israel” and thus influence the Messiah to come.

A movement of religious Jews in Israel has been making all necessary preparations to build the third temple and resume temple worship. To this end they have sought world-wide for an appropriate Red Heifer so they can perform the ritual as found in Numbers 19. According to the Mishnah, the written version of the oral tradition, the ceremony of the red heifer sacrifice has only been performed nine times in the history of the Jewish people. In Jewish tradition along with some Christian interpretations, the red heifer sacrifice, as described in Numbers 19, is seen as a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ's ultimate sacrifice, and a necessary step for the restoration of the Temple and the coming of the Messiah.

However, does attaching a name to a secular state (even with the obvious religious connotations the name carries) change the nature of that state? Certainly, there should be no doubt Israel has benefited from the name they chose to call their state – but does that make it the true Israel of God? For that matter, can we say this is even a fully reconstituted Israel that was scattered in the Diaspora? Personally, I would have to answer “no” to both questions. There is a verse in Romans 9:6 that comes to mind as I ponder these questions, “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.”

Today, less than half the Global population of Jews (about 48%) live in Israel. Most of the Jews in Israel aren’t observant and Israel is largely a secular state. A recent headline in “The Times of Israel” dated Oct 5, 2023 reads, “Religion has outsized role in Israel, yet most of its Jews aren’t really observant.” Under that heading, the subtitle is: “Over three-quarters of country’s Jews define themselves as secular or traditional; ultra-Orthodox birthrate is 6.5; some 4,000 Haredim leave their communities each year.”The article begins with:

“Israel is a nation perennially swept up in religious fervor and conflict. And yet, strikingly, a large portion of its population is secular, and even its insular ultra-Orthodox community loses a steady stream of members who tire of its strict religious rules.”

A great many of those living in the geopolitical state of Israel do not seem to have met the conditions spoken of in Deuteronomy 30:1-5. They also do not seem to recognize the word given in Leviticus 25:23: “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers.” Also, when considering these questions we must take into consideration that the command to care for the stranger in the land was so embedded in the Law that it was used as the basis for how God's people were to treat each other. Israelites were to treat their own poor as they would the stranger or the foreigner (Leviticus 25:35).

A recent article I read makes some very interesting points with regard to this topic and is well worth the read. I’d like to offer a few quotes from this article, “Who Owns the Holy Land? Thoughts on Homeland, Rights, and Ownership” By Shaul Magid.

“The Zionist project is a complex amalgam of interlocking political, cultural, and theological concepts and ideas. It also has to do with land—not any land, but the Holy Land. Who has a “right” to live there, and who has the legitimate claim to it? Some religious Jewish and Christian voices have proclaimed that exclusive Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel is a theological precept, even a necessary one, a precondition for the unfolding of the messianic era in Judaism and, in Christianity, for the return of Christ. On this reading, the land itself holds the key to the fulfillment of prophecy and the culmination of history. But who really owns the Holy Land?…

…The Torah tells us that it is only God who owns land, “for all the land is Mine.” In other words, God may bequeath the land of Israel to the Jews and their progeny but that does not result in “ownership,” per se; at best, it results in conditional stewardship. It is referred to as an inheritance (morasha), but inheritances can be taken away, as the prophets warn, and as history has shown. The Torah makes this clear in painstaking detail: if the Jews do not fulfill their covenantal responsibilities, God will take the land away from them. And theologically (or perhaps historically, depending on your perspective), God has done so—numerous times. Thus, Jews can claim conditional “rights” to the land but not “ownership” of it.”

“…Jewish “ownership” of the land of Israel is nominally grounded in the Hebrew Bible, but ignores the fact that the land of Israel is pointedly not Abraham’s own homeland (that would be Ur of the Chaldees). This fact animates much of the biblical narrative and is central to its themes. Abraham is a “sojourner” in the land—one who travels to the land from elsewhere—as it says in Genesis, “go forth from your land . . . to the land that I will show you.”…

…Rather than trying to read modern nationalism into an ancient text, I would like to try a different tack. Below, I explore the divine promise that stands at the center of the Jewish covenant as a resource for a Jewish alternative to proprietary Zionism that I call “counter-Zionism.” In this reading, the divine promise is not a promise of ownership, or a claim to indigeneity (which is arguably anti-biblical). Rather, it is closer to the promise of a homeland—but one that is not exclusive to the Jews.…

…For Buber [that would be Martin Buber, a very well known Jewish theologian in1948], there are consequences to giving this national movement a name that carries such religious significance. He argues that in evoking Zion, “Zionism” casts the Jews as caretakers rather than owners of the land. “This land was at no time in the history of Israel simply the property of the people; it was always at the same time a challenge to make of it what God intended to have made of it,” writes Buber. This notion is aligned more broadly with Buber’s notion of “theo-politics.”

“Buber’s argument presents a challenge to the theological claims made by both Jewish settlers and some Christian Zionists: that God gave this land to the Jews and thus the Jews have the exclusive right and authority to determine its status. In fact, that kind of proprietary argument is not a theological one at all; it’s a secular argument couched in theological language. Its essential claim is that nation-states (a secular political institution) own their land and thus are their sole proprietors. This claim in effect denies the biblical claim that the land (and certainly the land of Israel) is only owned by God and bequeathed to whomever God wishes.…”

The scattering of the nations began with confusing the tongues of the people at Babel. Therefore, I think it particularly fitting and obvious that at Pentecost, speaking “in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance,” was the sign that the restoration of the nations had begun. The split created at Babel was now being reversed. The Great Commission had been given, the Kingdom was on the move, the Ekklēsia was being built and nothing the enemy could do would stop it. This, to me, is further indication that Israel – the true Israel – had accomplished their purpose i.e. bringing the Messiah into the world and reuniting and blessing the nations scattered at Babel.

Paul states in Romans 4:3, “What does Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’” Those who believe – either Jew or Gentile are God’s chosen based on the same criteria by which the covenant was made with Abraham.

As I conclude this essay, I’m drawn back to the basic questions posed at the beginning. Are the church and Israel distinct entities? If they are to be seen as distinct, when/where did the separation happen? If so, must God deal with them separately and at different/separate times? What might the historical record tell us about this topic? To those questions I can only conclude that there is no distinction within God’s people. Throughout the Bible it seems clear to me that there only ever was one people of God. The Ekklēsia referenced in the Old Testament was Israel and from the remnant of that Israel comes the true Israel of God which included Jew and Gentile alike. It is that which became the Ekklēsia Jesus said he would build and which we today refer to as “the Church.” The promises, covenants and commitments were always for those who, through faith, believed/obeyed and followed God.

___________________________________

Notes for reference and further study:

⁽¹¹⁾ Chosen People:After the great flood, and all the reasons for God to bring judgment on the world at that time, we have one small surviving group. This group was then tasked with replenishing i.e. filling the earth with people. Genesis 9:1-3 says it this way:

“Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.”

Having been given this command they started out to do as they had been commanded. What follows is a series of genealogies in Chapter 10 that begin with Noah’s three sons and the nations that come from each of the sons. This chapter is often referred to as the “Table of Nations.”

In Chapter 11 we come to an account of the, “Tower of Babel.” It seems that the people had stalled in their obedience to God’s command, telling them to go forth and fill the earth. Instead they had settled in Shinar and decided they should stay there and not do as commanded. Verse 4 has the people saying, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” The chapter also makes it clear that the nations had begun worshipping other gods; the tower they were building was a ziggurat. Joshua 24:2 makes this worship of other gods very clear:

“Joshua said to all the people, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Long ago your ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods.”

Because of their disloyalty, refusal to obey His commands and their worship of other gods, God confused their languages so they could no longer understand each other. Construction of the city and tower stopped and He scattered them over all the earth. At this point Deuteronomy thirty-two explains the event in a little more detail. This chapter contains, “The Song of Moses,” and in this song, among many other things, he gives an account of the scattering of the nations under other gods. This song was to be a reminder and was sung by Moses shortly before he died. Deuteronomy 32:7-9:

“Remember the days of old; consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you, your elders, and they will tell you.

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

But the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.”

So after Babel, God makes a covenant with Abram as noted in Genesis 12. It seems the only condition at that point was that Abram “Go” (from his country to a place God would show him). Make no mistake, this was a, “You go___, and I will ___” condition; Abraham went.

Next, let’s look at the covenant with Abram in Genesis 15. First God promises him that he will give him offspring that will be as numerous as the stars in the sky. Because he believed God, it was credited to him as righteousness.

With respect to the land promised, Abram then says to God, “Sovereign Lord, how can I know that I will gain possession of it?” On the evening of that day, God made a covenant with him: “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”

Next, in Genesis 17 God gives Abram a new name and I believe that we see more details concerning the covenant God has with Abram. First we see a condition in verses 1&2:

“When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.’”

This indicates something Abram had to do first, followed by the commitment beginning with the words, “Then I will ….” Then follows verses 3-5 where God tells Abram his new name and why he was now given the name Abraham:

“Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.”

I entered this brief discussion about Abraham because the New Testament passages concerning Israel – its meaning, status and the promises that pertain to it etc. – usually include statements concerning Abraham. I do think it noteworthy that scripture tells us who Abraham was, what God chose him for and what the promises made to him were. Not only did the promises contain blessing and cursing of those who blessed or dishonoured him (Abraham) and a promise to make of him a great nation, but also that through him all the families of the earth will be blessed. Finally, contained within the covenant was the promise that he would be the father of many nations. We know that after this promise, Abraham did, in fact, have eight sons and we don’t know if he had any daughters. It was to be through Isaac, the son he had with Sarah, that the promised seed would come. The promised one (by which all the nations of the earth would be blessed) would come through this line because Abraham obeyed the voice of God.

At this point, Israel is nowhere in the story and does not appear until we get to Abraham’s grandson, Jacob. It was following his all-night struggle with an angel that God subsequently gave Jacob the name Israel. It is noteworthy that God gave both Abram and Jacob their new names and the names he chose to give them in relationship to the promises he made. The passage in Deuteronomy thirty-two refers to the Lord's portion as is “his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.”

Before going on any further I want to look at a couple of phrases contained within the promises that I think are too quickly passed by. The words are “believed the Lord” as used in Genesis 15:6, and “obeyed My voice” as used in Genesis 26:4-6. To the Hebrew mindset these words are virtually inseparable. There is no separate word for “obey.” The word translated as obey in our English Bibles is the word “shema.” At one time the word was translated as “harken” which still only partially captures the idea. If one believed, according to the Hebrew way of thinking, it included their doing whatever God commands – with a “hearing heart.” With this concept in mind, here are the two verses just mentioned - you could actually swap the words believed and obeyed in each passage and it would carry the same meaning.

Genesis 15: 6, “Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

Genesis 26:4-6, 4 I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”

I also want to make the point that the promises were never unconditional as some dispensationalists today claim. Because Abraham believed and obeyed the Lord, God kept the promises He made to him. The belief and obedience were the conditions. So what about the successive generations? If the promise made to Abraham was sufficient, why would it (and any conditions) then need to be repeated to successive generations?

We see that Isaac was made a similar promise in Genesis twenty-six and it is indeed preceded with a condition. Verses 2-4 read:

“And the Lord appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; dwell in the land of which I shall tell you. Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and will bless you, for to you and to your offspring I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham your father. I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,”

We then read that Isaac did (obeyed) as the Lord told him and he was indeed blessed as promised. Isaac’s son Jacob was next to receive the promise:

Genesis 28: 13-15 “There above it stood the Lord, and he said: “I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring. I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.”

Concerning this, verses 20-22 then read:

“Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me and will watch over me on this journey I am taking and will give me food to eat and clothes to wear so that I return safely to my father’s household, then the Lord will be my Godand this stone that I have set up as a pillar will be God’s house, and of all that you give me I will give you a tenth.”

⁽¹²⁾ When I read the punishments in Leviticus 26:27-35, I can’t help but be reminded of the plagues and tribulations as seen in Revelation. I am also reminded of the prophecies in Luke 21:5-24 that Jesus gave. Certainly the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. early in the Jewish-Roman wars from 66-136 A.D. seem to fit the description. Some might be inclined to see the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the first temple in 586 B.C. as one of those times of punishment as well.

With the first destruction and exile, Israel had been told it would be for 70 years – in other words, a time frame had been included. With respect to the outcome of the Jewish-Roman wars (which appear to have spanned roughly 70 years) no such time limit, or any assurance of return, is included.

Even with the most severe of the warnings given by God, there is still an offer of forgiveness if the Israelites repent and turn back to Him and His ways. However, I can find no passages in scripture that positively state Israel will ever get the land back and/or have or build another temple.

It is my belief that at this point the following brief historical summary is important to the topic at hand. While many Christians are familiar with the destruction of the temple and the date 70 A.D., they may not be quite as familiar with the ongoing Jewish-Roman wars. Seventy A.D. was a major event but it was not the only event with possible prophetic implications. The Jewish–Roman wars were actually a series of large-scale revolts by the Jews of Judea against the Roman Empire between 66 and 136 A.D.. The Jewish–Roman wars had a devastating impact on the Jewish people, turning them from a major population in the Eastern Mediterranean into a decimated and persecuted minority that was enslaved and dispersed widely.

The Bar Kokhba revolt was the third and final major escalation of the Jewish–Roman wars. This was a large-scale armed rebellion by the Jews of Judea against the Roman Empire, led by Simon bar Kokhba that began in 132 A.D. and lasted until 136 A.D.. The Roman army brutally suppressed the uprising which resulted in a total defeat of the short-lived Jewish state. The Roman campaigns led to the near-depopulation of Judea through widespread killings, mass enslavement, and the displacement of many Jews from the region. The last Jewish stronghold was Betar and it was here that Bar Kokhba was killed.

“The horrendous scene after the city's capture could be best described as a massacre. 112] The Jerusalem Talmud relates that the number of dead in Betar was enormous, and that the Romans "went about slaughtering them until a horse sunk in blood up to its nostrils, and the blood carried away boulders that weighted forty sela until it went four miles into the sea. If you should think that it (Betar) was close to the sea, behold, it was forty miles distant from the sea."[113][114]”

[Quote taken from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt]

Certainly, parts of that description sound as if they could have been lifted right out of Passages such as Revelation 14:20, “And the wine press was trampled outside the city, and blood came out from the wine press, up to the horses’ bridles, for a distance of 1,600 stadia.”

With respect to the seige of Jerusalem that began in 66 A.D. I’ve included this brief account. The following quote is taken from The Siege of Jerusalem, by Jared Jackson and draws on sources from: Keller, Werner. 1956. “The Bible as History.” New York, NY: William Morrow & Co.; as well as from Whitson, William. 1957. “The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus,” Philadelphia, PA: John C. Winston.

“…Food rations inside the city were scarce. During the nights, ghostly figures would sneak through hidden passages to steal food amid supplies from the soldiers’ tents. Titus decreed that those captured were to be crucified. A forest of crosses littered the countryside as trees were stripped off the land to satisfy the orders for crucifying some 500 Jews per day (cf. Matthew 27:25).

A rampart was built around the city to seal off the hidden passages. Hunger became so intense that the citizens became insane with famine, resorting to murdering one another over food; they even practiced cannibalism. Those who perished were cast over the walls into piles of bodies that remained unburied. The scene of the Holy City was one of utter desolation.

The campaign was taking longer than Titus expected; the soldiers were becoming difficult to manage. They could see Herod’s temple, with its golden surfaces glittering in each evening’s sunset. Every soldier could imagine himself taking spoil of what lay beyond the walls. The Jews who tried to escape had their bodies ripped open, as pitiless soldiers searched their stomachs for jewels and gold.

The Roman army gradually subdued the city, but was impeded when it reached the temple compound. The massive stone walls were impenetrable; the soldiers gained access by burning the great temple doors. Upon gaining entry, Titus commanded his men to put out the fire and “spare the Sanctuary.” But the Jews violently attacked those extinguishing the fire. The Romans retaliated with merciless slaughter; they went berserk — partly out of vengeance, partly with greed.

As the battle raged on, suddenly, a soldier—without command—launched a torch through the Golden Window of the temple. Instantly, the flames licked the fabrics and wood that adorned the interior of that precious building. Titus again commanded his soldiers to put out the fire, but to no avail. The temple was lost. Eventually, the soldiers completely tore apart the compound, looking for rumored treasures. They plundered the city and extracted vengeance from the enemy that had resisted them so bitterly, and had cost them so much.

Having lost its glory, Titus ordered the city razed to bury the evil he had witnessed.

Some 40 years earlier, Jesus had prophesied that “not one of these stones shall be left one upon another” (Matthew 24:1-2). Despite the efforts of the Jews to defend their temple, and the endeavors of the Roman general to preserve that precious building, Christ’s words were fulfilled. The Savior’s prophecy could not be thwarted by mere human resistance. He is Lord of all!

Why discuss such horrors? Why elaborate on the gory details? The destruction of God’s own city, Jerusalem, is a vivid warning to you and to me — of but yet another prophecy. There is another siege — yet in the future. This one will involve the entire planet (Matthew 24:36ff; 2 Peter 3)!”

It is noteworthy that a number of messianic figures arose during these Jewish uprisings against Rome. Right up through the Bar Kokhba revolt, these figures were regarded as possible messiahs by those deceived into following them. False messiahs had been prophesied by Jesus in his Olivet discourse along with the warning not to be deceived. Many historians mark these Jewish–Roman wars as a significant time in the split of Christianity and Judaism. Does this split legitimize the dispensational idea of Two peoples of God? Personally, I do not believe that it does. It remains quite obvious to me that there is still just one people of God and it (Israel) is made up of a remnant of Jewish believers as well as Gentile believers. (For further study see Galatians 3:28; Romans 9:6-7 & 27-29)

One final note regarding this period of history… secular records tell us that the Christians of the first century found safety because they heeded Christ’s warnings. Will the modern world listen to his warnings?”