At various times and in various places, premillennial scholars have referred to Acts 1:6-8 to help prove that there will be a future kingdom restoration for national Israel. This argument is based on the disciples’ post-resurrection expectation, posed in a question to Jesus in v. 6: “So when they had come together, they asked him, ‘Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’”[1] Michael Vlach states, “Acts 1:6 reaffirm[s] the OT expectation of a future for national Israel.”[2] He goes on, “The future restoration of the Davidic kingdom to Israel is still to come (see Acts 1:6).”[3] Scot McKnight has remarked:
It still remains that [Jesus’] audience [in Acts 1:6] thought he was teaching an imminent realization of the kingdom. And, to the degree that we think Jesus was a good teacher and capable of communicating his thoughts intelligibly and coherently (and few would deny this), we must also argue that, if his audiences thought like this, he must have believed in such and taught such about the future…. We have every right to think that the impulsive hopes of his audience were on target.[4]
John A. McLean states that Jesus’ response to this question affirmed “the disciples’ belief in the restoration of the kingdom to Israel.”[5] Ben Witherington states that Acts 1:6 “suggests that God will one day fulfill his promises to Israel.”[6] What are we to make of such statements?
Rather than presenting an apologetic for the restoration of the kingdom to national Israel, the complex of Acts 1:6-8 reveals that the disciples were mistaken in their limited nationalistic kingdom views, and the eschatological kingdom was about to break into the present age with the coming of the promised Spirit of God. Israel was indeed about to be restored, but not in the manner that the disciples were expecting. Accordingly, I do not believe Acts 1:6 is a proof text for the restoration of Israel in a future millennial, or “kingdom,” period.
A cursory examination of Acts 1:6-11 shows that the disciples are rebuked twice in a very brief period of time. They are reproved first by the risen Lord (vv. 7-8), and then by two angels (v. 11). Far from showing off their spiritual acumen regarding present and future events, Luke appears to be placing their ineptitude on display in a prominent position at the very beginning of his narrative. The gospel accounts reveal that the disciples had been consistently wrong about Jesus and His teaching on the kingdom for the three years that they had been traveling and living with Him prior to this incident in Acts 1. McLean observes, “Much of the ministry of Jesus is presented in the form of rebuke or correction. Nearly half of Matthew and Mark includes ‘correction materials’ and nearly one-third of Luke and John consists of such material.”[7]
Given this, is there any indication in the biblical text which would create a belief that the disciples had suddenly received some sort of special discernment ability in the forty days immediately prior to the incident Acts 1:6-8? Such insight would only come with the empowerment and assistance of the Spirit at Pentecost, yet future from our perspective here. The disciples appear to be yet in ignorance regarding the matter of kingdom restoration. Given this situation, surely it would be misguided to place our confidence in a future restoration of Israel upon the darkened understanding of the disciples’ pre-Pentecost views.[8]
Outside of Acts 1:6-8, the NT appears to be completely silent on the issue of a future national kingdom restoration of Israel. Vlach vacillates a bit on the matter, first appearing to concede the point: “Silence by the NT on a matter discussed in the OT should not be taken to mean that the OT teaching has been dropped or transformed,” before positing, “Although details of a restoration of Israel are not repeated, it is questionable whether the NT is actually silent about Israel’s restoration.”[9] These assertions surely gloss over the immense significance that, outside of a narrative reference in Acts 1, such a prominent OT theme as the kingdom restoration of national Israel is not repeated at all in the NT.[10] One would think that if this belief were present in the Christian community at that critical and formative period of time, it would have surfaced at some point in the NT revelation. How is it that a topic on which the NT is silent has become a major focus of evangelical theology and belief? As will be discussed later, I believe that the NT is indeed filled with references regarding the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, but that the manner of this restoration is not one that some evangelicals (or the pre-Pentecost disciples) readily recognize.
The disciples were obviously expecting an ethnically exclusive, national restoration of the kingdom to Israel, centered in Jerusalem. What led them to ask such a question at this point in the two-part Lukan narrative? In Acts 1:3 we find that Jesus appeared to the apostles during a period of forty days in which He taught them “about the kingdom of God,” which was the main subject of Jesus’ earthly teaching and is a main concern in Acts.[11] During this time, He “ordered them” to stay in Jerusalem to await “the promise of the Father” which was the baptism of “the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (1:4-5). The Jewish expectation of redemption and restoration in the first century, and during the “centuries and millennia of the old covenant era could be said to focus on [the] great fact of the outpouring of the Spirit.”[12] The apostles’ question in 1:6 clearly reveals the common Jewish expectation that an outpouring of God’s Spirit was to accompany the restoration of the kingdom.[13]
It is in the baptism of the Spirit at Pentecost that we see the blossoming of the promised eschatological kingdom that Christ had inaugurated during the time of His incarnation (cf. Matt. 12:28). The coming of the kingdom should not be unduly separated from this event. A biblically faithful eschatology recognizes that the coming of the Spirit is the coming of the kingdom. Whether evidenced in the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth or in the post-Pentecost ministry of His disciples, the coming of the Spirit bears the explicit hallmark of the promised eschatological kingdom of God. When the Spirit of God displays His power through the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, the kingdom is present; when the Spirit of God displays His power through the ministry of Jesus’ disciples, the kingdom is present.
In 1:7-8, Jesus answers the disciples’ kingdom restoration question:
He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
Prominent scholars, such as Darrell L. Bock, believe that in Jesus’ reply, He merely addresses the temporal element of the disciples’ question.[14] However, the structure of the question reveals that it contains at least three constituent parts:
(1) The reality of the kingdom itself (‘Will you restore the kingdom?’), (2) the specific domain of the kingdom (‘Will you restore the kingdom to Israel?’), and (3) the timing of the restoration (‘Will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’). In his response, Jesus refused to deal with the third element of the question, the matter of timing…. But it must not be presumed that Jesus’ response to his disciples’ question consists solely of his rather curt rebuke to their query concerning the timing of the kingdom’s arrival. On the contrary, the resurrected Christ proceeds to indicate that the presence of the kingdom will be established by a display of its power in just a few days (v. 8)….[15]
Further, the specific restoration terminology that Jesus used should cause us to see that, in His rebuke, He was not addressing merely the timing of the kingdom restoration, but was instead redirecting the disciples’ very understanding of “kingdom” and “restoration” itself.[16] Jesus utilized key terms and loaded phrases such as “witnesses” and “to the end of the earth” that are lifted from OT texts referring to the future and final restoration of the kingdom to Israel. This deeper truth appears to be consistently overlooked and/or minimized in many circles, even down to the present day.
Jesus declares to the disciples, “you will be my witnesses” (μάρτυρες). One scholar has stated that the concept of “witness” is “so prominent in Acts…that everything else in the book should probably be subsumed under it.”[17] The fact that Luke places this “witness” narrative in such a pronounced place, and then goes on to utilize this word in its various forms some thirty-nine times throughout Acts,[18] proves its importance in his thought. The gravity and finality of the “witness” mandate is further driven home when we observe that this is the final instruction given by Christ prior to His ascension on a cloud in 1:9 (which is likely a reference to the kingdom prophecy in Dan. 7:13-14).[19] Thus, Acts 1:8 is a thematic verse that characterizes both the message and structure of the entire book in a succinct and powerful manner.[20]
We find this same “witness” terminology utilized in Isa. 43:10, a passage that is set within the eschatological context of God’s merciful restoration of Israel[21] in 43:1-44:23: “‘You are my witnesses [LXX: μάρτυρες, also in 43:12],’ declares the LORD, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen.’” Another text that brings forth a connection between μάρτυρες and the OT concept of the restoration of Israel is Isa. 44:8: “‘Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses [LXX: μάρτυρες]! Is there a God besides me?’” Would it not be a strain to suppose it mere coincidence that, within the context of such a direct question regarding Israel’s restoration, Jesus utilized a term that was very prominent in Isaiah’s restoration prophecies? Is it not more palatable to presume that Jesus intentionally used this key term to assist His disciples in understanding the nature of the restoration by grounding His instruction regarding the nature of this kingdom firmly in the OT Scriptures (cf. Luke 24:25-27)?
Further, with the phrase “to the end of the earth” (ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς) in Acts 1:8, Jesus appears to be guiding His disciples to a greater and more nuanced understanding of the prophesied kingdom restoration, for this specific phrase is found in the restoration text of Isa. 49:6: “[H]e says: ‘It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth [LXX: ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς].’” Dispensational scholars Walvoord and Zuck hold that Isa. 49:6 is found within a larger complex of teaching in chapters 49-57 that deal with the restoration of Israel: “[Chapters 49-57] deal primarily with the Servant-Messiah fulfilling His ministry of restoring the covenant people to the land just before the Millennium will begin.”[22] Laying aside for now the contention that Isaiah foresaw a specifically premillennial restoration of Israel (this conclusion has to be read back into Isaiah from Revelation 20, written some 800 years later), it is significant to note that dispensational scholars view the larger context of Isa. 49:6 as the “restoring [of] the covenant people to the land.” In the face of this, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain that in Acts 1:8 Jesus was merely rebuking the disciples regarding the timing of the restoration only, and not also attempting to instruct them regarding the nature of this restoration as well, that it would be a transcendent kingdom, cutting across all national and worldly boundaries.[23]
In Isaiah 49, the restoration was to be accomplished by the “servant,”[24] who is named “Israel” in 49:3. This “servant” was “called” and “named” by God “from the womb” (49:1, 5; cf. Matt. 1:25), his mouth was made “like a sharp sword” (49:2; cf. Rev. 1:16), in him God would be “glorified” (49:3; cf. Luke 7:16), in him the “tribes of Jacob” and “the preserved of Israel” would be restored (49:5-6; cf. Heb. 8:8-12), and he would be “a light for the nations, that [God’s] salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (49:6; cf. John 1:9; Acts 1:8). In all of these descriptions we may find complete fulfillment of the restoration of Israel in the life of Jesus of Nazareth (who alone is the true Israelite) and in the progress of His gospel to the ends of the earth. Thus, if we see a reference to Isa. 49:6 in Jesus’ teaching in Acts 1:8,[25] we may also gain a deeper understanding of just how it is that Israel is restored and rebuilt upon the Christ, the Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20).[26]
The phrase “end of the earth,” as Bock points out, is “geographic and ethnic in scope, inclusive of all people and locales.”[27] Jesus here extends the kingdom vocation previously reserved for ethnic Israel to include not only believing Israelites, but also believing Gentiles. The kingdom mission is thus restored to and through believing Israelites and extended to and through believing Gentiles. Viewed in the context of the restoration language of Isaiah in Acts 1:8, we are able to see how Jesus desired that His followers (then and now) understand that the blessings of kingdom restoration were not intended to be exclusive, limited in geography and ethnicity (as would be the case in a restoration of national Israel only), but inclusive, extended outward through national borders to all people the world over.[28] Thus is the mystery revealed, that the Gentiles would become fellow heirs of the kingdom promises made to national Israel (Eph. 3:6; Gal. 3:29; cf. 2 Cor. 1:20).[29]
Interpretations of the restoration of the promised eschatological kingdom of God abound.[30] The voluminous amount of literature produced on the subject should suffice to prove this point. However, given the weight of the biblical evidence presented above, I do not believe that citing Acts 1:6-8 is a prudent exercise for premillennialists wishing to prove a case for a future kingdom restoration of national Israel. There simply are no NT texts that teach such a doctrine.[31] The best argumentation for a future national restoration of Israel is grounded in a strictly literal interpretation of OT prophecies. While I do not believe that such an approach is illegitimate, I also do not believe that it is the best way to understand the teaching of the Scriptures as a unified corpus.[32]
Bibliography found here.
[1] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations will be from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version with Key Numbers (Crossway Bibles, 2006), Version 2.4, Accordance Bible Software 8.4.7, Oak Tree Software, Inc., 2010.
[2] Michael J. Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? A Theological Evaluation (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010), 98.
[3] Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? 101. Also: “Passages such as…Acts 1:6…speak of a future salvation and restoration of the nation Israel” (104) and, “Another passage that supports the idea of a restoration of national Israel is Acts 1:6-7” (190).
[4] Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 130-31.
[5] John A. McLean, “Did Jesus Correct the Disciples’ View of the Kingdom?” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (April-June 1994): 218.
[6] Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 110.
[7] McLean, “Did Jesus Correct the Disciples’ View of the Kingdom?” 218.
[8] On the darkened understanding of the disciples, O. Palmer Robertson remarks, “One could infer that these disciples’ understanding of the nature of Christ’s kingdom was little better than had been displayed by the Jews in the days of the Maccabees or by the Zealots in Jesus’ own day” (The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2000], 130).
[9] Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? 162-63.
[10] On the subject of NT silence on this doctrine, Bruce K. Waltke states, “If revised dispensationalism produced one passage in the entire New Testament that clearly presents the resettlement of national Israel in the land, I would join them. But I know of none! ... [This] silence is even more striking when one considers that land is the fourth most frequent term in the Old Testament” (“A Response,” in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: The Search for Definition, ed. by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992], 357, emphasis in original).
[11] John B. Polhill states, “In spite of the sparse references, God’s kingdom is a central concern of Acts, and it is interesting to note that the book begins (1:3) and ends (28:31) on that theme” (Acts, The New American Commentary [Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992], 82).
[12] Robertson, The Israel of God, 128.
[13] John B. Polhill states, “It is not surprising from Jesus’ prior remarks about the coming of the Spirit and the fulfillment of God’s promises (v. 5) that the disciples concluded the final coming of God’s kingdom might have been imminent. In Jewish thought God’s promises often referred to the coming of Israel’s final salvation, and this concept is reflected elsewhere in Acts (cf. 2:39; 13:23, 32; 26:6). Likewise, the outpouring of the Spirit had strong eschatological associations. Such passages as Joel 2:28-32 were interpreted in nationalistic terms that saw a general outpouring of the Spirit on Israel as a mark of the final great messianic Day of the Lord when Israel would be ‘restored’ to the former glory of the days of David and Solomon” (Acts, 84). George Eldon Ladd states, “[The] gift of the Spirit is an eschatological event belonging to the day when God finally redeems his people Israel, and gathers them into his Kingdom” (A Theology of the New Testament, Revised Edition [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 380).
[14] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 62. He further states: “There is no indication in Jesus’ reply…that anything they asked was wrong except that they are excessively concerned about when all of this would take place” (62).
[15] Robertson, The Israel of God, 132 (italics added).
[16] N.T. Wright: “Jesus spent his whole ministry redefining what the kingdom meant. He refused to give up the symbolic language of the kingdom, but filled it with such new content that, as we have seen, he powerfully subverted Jewish expectations” (Jesus and the Victory of God [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996], 471.)
[17] Richard N. Longenecker, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 9:256. Bock comments, “‘Witness’ is a key term in Acts for those who experienced Jesus and saw him in a resurrection appearance” (Acts, 64 [emphasis added]). Witherington states that “one of, if not the major, theme of Acts” is the programmatic term “witnesses” (The Acts of the Apostles, 111).
[18] Longenecker, “Acts,” 9:256.
[19] In Daniel 7:13-14, “one like a son of man” is brought on “the clouds of heaven” to be “presented” before the Ancient of Days. To this son of man “was given dominion” and a “kingdom…that shall not be destroyed.” N.T. Wright states, “Jesus is exalted on a cloud [in Acts 1:9], presumably to the right hand of the Ancient of Days. As a result, he has received the kingdom, the world rulership, which is that for which Israel longed, but which is now seen in a different guise. The disciples’ question and Jesus’ answer in Acts 1:6-9 effect a transformed reading of prophecy…. Jesus [in His answer] reaffirms the expectation, but alters the interpretation [in 1:7-8]…. This is at once linked to the kingdom promised in Daniel 7, since in the next verse Jesus is described in language proper to the vindicated, kingdom-receiving son of man” (The New Testament and the People of God. [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992], 374).
[20] Longenecker: “So here Jesus’ mandate to witness not only gives us the theme of Acts but also a basic table of contents by the threefold reference to ‘Jerusalem,’ ‘all Judea and Samaria,’ and ‘the ends of the earth’…. In what follows he shows through a series of vignettes how the mission of the church in its witness to Jesus fared at Jerusalem (2:42-8:3), throughout Judea and Samaria (8:4-12:24), and as it progressed until it finally reached the imperial capital city of Rome (12:25-28-31)” (“Acts,” 9:257).
[21] Outline of Bible Books, ed. by David Lang and Greg Ward, Version 1.9, Accordance Bible Software 8.4.7, Oak Tree Software, Inc., 2010. David L. Tiede notes that Isaiah 40-66 picks up the common “refrain” of “restoration” in OT thought (“The Exaltation of Jesus and the Restoration of Israel in Acts 1,” Harvard Theological Review 79 [1986]: 284).
[22] John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Bible Knowledge Commentary (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook Communication Ministries, 1989), Version 1.2, Accordance Bible Software 8.4.7, Oak Tree Software, Inc., 2010.
[23] Benjamin L. Merkle, “Old Testament Restoration Prophecies Regarding the Nation of Israel: Literal or Symbolic?” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 14/1 (2010): 22.
[24] Isa. 49:3: “And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.’” This servant named “Israel” is distinguished from national Israel in 49:5, where the text indicates that the servant would “bring Jacob back” and re-gather “Israel” to the Lord. Surely, it cannot be held that “Israel,” as used in Is. 49:3 and 49:5 are referring to the same entity. A strictly literal hermeneutic (as employed by some traditional dispensational theologians) simply does not allow for the apparent flexibility in which the prophet deploys this term in such a short span of text. How do we reconcile the usage of “Israel” here to describe two seemingly different entities, one singular and one corporate? I propose that the servant “Israel” in 49:3 refers to Christ, who is the Head of all those who are united with Him (cf. Col. 2:19). This “Israel” is the One who would be God’s “servant, to bring Jacob [the corporate people of God at that time] back to him” (49:5-6, note the language of relational union). Thus, “Israel” (Christ) was going to bring back and restore “Israel” (the people of God) to a relational union with the Lord (presumably by the power of the Holy Spirit, as indicated in new covenant texts such as Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:25-28). Here, at least, is one instance in Scripture where “Israel” does not mean corporate, national Israel. Thus, it cannot be held that, when found anywhere in the biblical text, the term “Israel” always refers to national Israel.
[25] In support of this view Tiede states, “The key scriptural resource for Luke’s interpretation of Jesus’ exaltation was the divine oracle of Isa. 49:6” (“The Exaltation of Jesus and the Restoration of Israel in Acts 1,” 285). Dispensationalist Darrell L. Bock states that scholars have noted that “Luke uses Isaiah extensively” and that, therefore, these scholars believe “an allusion to it [in Acts 1:8] is likely.” Bock also comments that it is “possible” that Isa. 49:6 is “in the background” of Jesus’ rebuke in Acts 1:8 (Acts, 65). Citing Isa. 49:6, George Eldon Ladd states that “the ingathering of the Gentiles [was] an integral part of Jesus’ Old Testament-based eschatological vision” (A Theology of the New Testament, 699).
[26] O. Palmer Robertson states that, throughout the book of Acts, there is “slowness on the part of the church to grasp the character of the kingdom even as they experienced its reality” [cf. Peter and John in 8:14, Peter and Cornelius in chapter 10, the Jerusalem Council in chapter 15]. The disciples had the “greatest difficulty comprehending the ‘mystery’ that the ‘Gentiles’ would be in every way equal with the Jews as ‘heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus’ (Eph. 3:6). It is this equality of possession of the kingdom promises by Jews and Gentiles that still today is most difficult for the church to grasp” (The Israel of God, 136, emphasis in original).
[27] Bock, Acts, 65.
[28] A brief excursus on my understanding of kingdom restoration as it relates to the people of God in previous times and today: In Matt. 21:43, Jesus teaches that the kingdom was going to be taken away from Israel and “given to a people producing its fruits.” The word “people” here is ἔθνος, the same word translated “nation” in Rom. 10:19 and 1 Pet. 2:9. In Rom. 10:19, the word refers to the people whom the Lord has turned to and poured out His blessings upon (i.e., the Gentiles), thereby making unbelieving Jews “jealous.” Considering the likely context of Peter’s first epistle, in 1 Pet. 2:9 we can surmise that his usage of ἔθνος refers to both Jewish and Gentile believers in the Church. It is this “nation” or “people” who have received the first blessings of the kingdom restoration that was inaugurated by Christ in the new covenant age that were poured out, at least in its initial stages, at Pentecost.
This does not mean that God has rejected His former people Israel (Rom. 11:1), for they may participate in this kingdom restoration via the new birth by the Spirit; they are not summarily excluded from it. There remains a number of Israelites (like Paul) who participate in the kingdom as part of the elect “remnant [of Jews], chosen by grace” through faith in Christ (Rom. 11:5). The rest of unbelieving Israel has become “hardened,” and are thus excluded from the promise of kingdom restoration and the entering of God’s rest due to their lack of faith (Rom. 11:7, 25; Heb. 3:11-12; 3:18-4:1). Hardening is a form of divine punishment and retribution for sin. Israel was “broken off,” (Rom. 11:17) they were not “spared” (Rom. 11:21). These are graphic word pictures that are intended to display the wrath of God toward sinners that are hostile to His nature, character, and saving intent. When given their full weight, they are pictures of severity that do not appear to leave any hermeneutical wiggle room for some type of future salvation. This is a graphic picture of God reacting in the strongest possible way against the sin of those who have rejected His dear Son (Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965], 224). This hardening of a portion of unbelieving Jews will continue until this age is brought to a close by the return of the King. In this age, kingdom blessings fall upon all (Jew and Gentile alike) who are grafted into the one olive tree of believers of all ages (Rom. 11:17-24).
That Gentiles would become fellow heirs with Jews in the kingdom blessings of God by faith (Eph. 3:6; Gal. 3:7-9, 28-29; cf. 2 Cor. 1:20) is the revelation of the truth of God that was veiled in previous times (μυστήριον, “mystery” in Rom. 11:25). Hence, “all Israel” (Rom. 11:26) refers to all of the people of God throughout all of the ages of salvation history: all the OT saints plus the elect remnant of Israelites who have faith in Christ in the present new covenant age plus all Gentile believers. Such a reading of “all Israel” is natural in the light of the fact that Gentile believers are depicted as being grafted into the one “olive tree” of God (Rom. 11:17-24), a term that was used in the OT as a name and picture of believing Israel (Jer. 11:16; cf. Ps. 52:8). Thus, “all Israel” = “the olive tree” (with Jewish and Gentile branches) = the unified people of God of all ages. (Cf. “Israel of God” as a referent to the church in Gal. 6:16 and “Israel” as referring to the Messiah in Isa. 49:3 for other instances of divinely inspired flexibility regarding the employment of the term “Israel.” Thus, seeing the referent of “Israel” in Rom. 11:26 as referring to all true believers of all ages does not stretch this term beyond understanding.
At the present, unbelieving ethnic Israelites are “enemies of God” while believing Israelites (like Paul) “are beloved for the sake of their forefathers” (Rom. 11:28). Gentiles have received “mercy” in the new covenant age because of the “disobedience” of unbelieving Israelites. However, “mercy” is still being offered to those Jews who would repent and believe the gospel (Rom. 11:31). At various points in salvation history, “all” have been “disobedient,” with the divine purpose that the Lord may pour out His rich kingdom blessings “on all” (Rom. 11:32). The sheer enormity of such a plan should cause all believers to glory and revel in the majesty of our great and wonderful God (Rom. 11:33-36)!
[29] It should be noted that the fullness of this kingdom is not realized at the present time. This fullness awaits the return of the King and the final consummation and restoration of all things (Rev. 21:1-5).
[30] With this in mind, evangelicals should hold their eschatology loosely, with an “open hand,” as it were. God has obscured many of the specific details about the future for our good and for His own purposes (Acts 1:7; cf. Deut. 29:29). Eschatological differences should never be a cause for division or schism within the body of Christ. Those who promote such unnecessary rifts within the church should be avoided (cf. Rom. 16:17).
[31] Some premillennialists refer to Rom. 9-11 to support a case for national restoration. However, if this text does, in fact, teach a future mass salvation of ethnic Jews (and I do not believe that it does), it must be admitted that it teaches this only, and not a restoration of the nation of Israel.
[32] Such a strictly literal approach to OT prophecy, however, has to reckon with the clear reapplication of these prophecies in the new covenant age by Jesus and the inspired prophets of the NT. Some examples include: (1) Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:14-21; (2) Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-17; (3) Jer. 31:31-34 in Heb. 8:8-12; (4) Ex. 6:7; 19:5-6; Isa. 43:20-21 in 1 Pet. 2:9-10, and (5) Deut. 30; Joel 2:32 in Rom. 10:5-13. While I cannot with complete certainty hold that these Scriptures are fully and finally fulfilled at present, I also must admit that I find it extremely unlikely that, in them, the NT authors were still looking forward to some kind of future fulfillment for national Israel, and hence, I do not look for one either.
.jpg)
