Jesus and the End-Time

Israel and The End-Time
 The Remnant

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have demolished they altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." But what is God's reply to him? " I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works' otherwise grace would no longer be grace. Romans 11:1-6
Through the nation of Israel, God purposed to work out his plans for the world of men; yet the destiny of Israel is hardly the main point of the Bible. It never was. It was never even the main point of the Old Testament. God's promise to Abraham certainly implied a blessing for the family of Abraham, but more than that the promise stated that the family of Abraham was to be a blessing to others: "By you all the families of the earth will bless themselves" (Genesis 12:3).

In the New Testament this promise to Abraham is fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Jesus and in the subsequent proclamation to the world of the universal Gospel of the atonement of Jesus for the world.

It may well be asked whether this was God's intention all along. According to one interpretation, Jesus came as the Messiah of Israel. If he had been accepted by the nation as their Messiah, the Kingdom would then have been established, not only in reality but also in appearance; the Old Testament prophecies would be fulfilled in an earthly messianic Kingdom with Jesus reigning over it. But the nation rejected Jesus, and he was crucified by the Romans.

Several questions arise out of this interpretation. Does this mean that Jesus would not have died for me if the Jews had accepted him as their Messiah? Or does it mean that God was only "going through the motions" when he made the offer to Israel, because he knew they weren't going to accept it anyway? Either way the cross of Jesus was a second choice; the messianic Kingdom of Israel was the primary objective and the salvation of the world was secondary. Otherwise, God would not have risked losing the opportunity for atonement by offering the Jews the true option of establishing a messianic Kingdom without a cross; or, if they did not have a true option, would not have bothered to "go through the motions" of making them an offer they couldn't accept.

It is more in keeping with the New Testament to look at the story another way. The offer of the Kingdom to Israel should by seen in the light of the cross; Jesus came with the cross as his primary objective. John the Baptist declared this at the very beginning of the ministry of Jesus: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world' (John 1:29). There was nothing conditional about either the offer or the cross; both were genuine. But if Israel had accepted the offer, the result would not have been the establishment of the messianic Kingdom; it would have been the crucifixion of Israel. That is exactly how Jesus offered himself. "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" (Luke 9:23). It would have been Israel's privilege to share in his death if they had accepted him as King.

If one's concept of the Kingdom is earthly, that does not sound like a privilege. The leaders of the Jews saw Jesus and his offer with hard realism and analyzed it correctly; after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11) they knew what they had to do. "If we let him go on thus, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation." That is exactly what would have happened. So Caiaphas, the high priest, made the choice. It was either Jesus and the nation, or Jesus alone; political logic demanded that he sacrifice an individual instead of the nation. "You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish" (John 11:48-50). Nothing could have prevented the crucifixion of Jesus; he was doomed to the cross by his own mission and by the nature of a world that would, in any tome or place, crucify him. The only choice that the nation had was whether or not to share his death with him. Through their leaders they chose not to; but even the disciples, when they were confronted with it, panicked and ran away. And it is speculative to suppose that God would have miraculously intervened and defeated the Romans with force had the nation accepted Jesus. The thought of that is not in the Gospels at all; if Jesus did not do it to save himself (or to save the thief who did accept him and die with him), there is no reason to think he would have done for more than one what he didn't do for one.

The salvation of the world, not the earthly destiny of Israel, is the theme of the Gospel. But if that is true, what part does Israel have to play in the New Testament?

Israel is the context of Jesus. When God made a new beginning with Jesus-the last Adam, as Paul calls him (1 Corinthians 15:45)-he made it within Israel, not among the Chinese or the American Indians. Israel was not a mistake; Jesus is continuos with Israel. But the role of Israel in the New Testament is admittedly difficult. Paul defined it with three great theological principles.

The first is the principle of foreknowledge. God has not rejected his people, whom he foreknew. From personal experience Paul knew that God had not rejected Israelites as individuals because he himself was an Israelite. But there is more to it than that. God's foreknowledge means that he knew the whole troubled history of Israel before it happened. Their disobedience, their stubbornness, their rejection of him never surprised him. Through it all they gained much suffering for themselves and forfeited much blessing, just as sin always entails suffering and loss of blessing; but still God would fulfill through them the second part of his promise to Abraham, that they were to be a blessing to all nations. God in his foreknowledge did not say, "Well, they didn't work out." He knew from the beginning how they were going to work out; therefore he did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. They were accepted, but on the same grounds all are accepted-because Christ died for them.

The redemptive process came to fruition in Christ through the history of Israel. This made them a special case. The Gentiles must be brought in; Israel, on the other hand, must claim their true identity in Christ.

To explain this Paul employed the principle of the remnant: God has chosen a remnant of Israel to be his people. We understand the ordinary use of the term-a remnant is what is left over after material has been put to use. Most of a batch of dough goes into the piecrust; what is left is the remnant. As dough, it is just a good as that which was used in the pie crust, and if it were used it would make just as good a crust. (My mother used to take the remnant of pie dough, roll it into an irregular shape, sprinkle it with sugar and cinnamon, and bake it. In my earliest years I liked it better than the pie.)

But the normal emphasis is on the pie, for that is the principal use of the material. Even if the pie turned out bad and had to be thrown out, the pie would still be the principal use. You cannot do too much more than please a five-year-old with a small irregular piece of crust.

But God did not think like a baker. He has turned the use of the remnant into the principal use. When Israel rejected Jesus, they rejected the purpose of God for themselves. We say they rejected him-yet not all rejected him. There were some who received him. "He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God"(John 1 :11, 12). There were some who received him. In the days of Elijah it seemed to that prophet that all Israel had turned to Baal, but it was not so. Seven thousand in Israel were still faithful; there was a remnant. "So too at the present time," says Paul, "there is a remnant chosen by grace." In both cases the remnant was the true Israel. In the remnant, and that alone, were the purposes of God for Israel being worked out.

In the remnant God affirmed his historical purpose of calling out a people for his name. He never needs a majority-not of votes, not of guns or bombs. What he needs are those who are willing to believe and obey the truth. If he has them, he has what he needs. He is able to make to them an outlandish promise, as Jesus made it to his disciples when they had little money and influence and certainly no military strength: "Fear not, little flock, for it is the Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Luke 12:32).

The remnant concentrated the people of God until it came down to 120 Jews gathered in one place on the day of Pentecost. There was not a Gentile present; but more to the point was the allegiance of these particular Jews to Jesus as the Messiah. They believed in the promises of God and saw themselves as demonstrated by Peter's sermon, in fulfillment of them. There, in that place, was the true Israel of God. There God poured his Holy Spirit upon them. There was the remnant chosen by grace.

The Church, according to Paul, is the continuation of Israel, the people of God. Who else can the remnant, chosen by grace, be but the Christian Jews of whom Paul cites himself as a prime example? In the beginning the Church was Jewish; God did not break free from Israel and begin elsewhere with a new people. Instead he did what he had done throughout the Old Testament-worked with the believing remnant of Israel.1

Here is the crucial moment in the history of the people of God-not the rejection of Israel, but the inclusion of believing Gentiles in the faithful remnant of Israel. The third principle in this passage is grace. By grace the remnant is chosen, and by grace the Gentiles are included. Everyone who is willing is free to become part of the people of God.

Later in chapter 11 Paul illustrates his point. He likens the people of God to an olive tree from which some branches must be pruned (unbelieving Jews) and to which wild olive shoots (believing Gentiles) are added by grafting. The tree itself, root and trunk, is Israel.
But if some of the branches were broken off and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. You will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe (vv. 17-20).
The people of God is an organic whole. We are the inheritors of a life and tradition that is Jewish at its core. It is God's revelation to the Jews in Holy Scripture on which we stand and by which we are nourished. We have the privilege of entering into the true Israel.

This still leaves us with the nation of Israel, with those who are not in the remnant. We must deal now with them the best we can on the basis of Paul's discussion of the problem.

1 The New Testament does not refer to the Church as the "New Israel," but it surely teaches in Romans 9-11 that the Church is continuous with Israel. The one verse that may refer to the Church as Israel, Galatians 6:16, is ambiguous in the Greek text. RSV reads, "Peace and mercy be upon all those who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God." The problem is that the conjunction kai can mean and, or it can mean even, that is. Possible literal translations are, therefore: 1) "And those who will walk by this rule, peace to them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." Such translation implies two groups of people. 2) "And those who will walk by this rule, peace to them and mercy, even upon the Israel of God." This translation implies that the Israel of God is the group that walks by the rule (the rule being no distinction between circumcision and the lack of it)> Modern English translations are divided in their understanding of the verse; obviously it is no verse to build a theology upon. But for what it is worth, I agree with the second interpretation as most in keeping with the theme of Galatians.

 » Next Page — The Destiny of Israel
» Table of Contents
» Home