PJ HanleyMost “evangelicals” today believe in the restoration of Israel and the Millennial reign of Christ. There is a common agreement that the age will end with the emergence of a real Antichrist figure and great tribulation for the Jewish people and the world. It is also agreed by most that Jesus will literally reign during the Millennium from a literal Jerusalem over a literal earth with the Jewish people as head over all the nations. However, the majority among this same group also cling to the Augustinian view of heaven and the world to come. It is a hybrid Eschatology of Gentile and Hebraic origins, considered thoroughly biblical and as common as apple pie. It sanctions the reinterpretation of the Old Testament as allegorically applying to the church, while at the same time condescendingly accepting a future role for Israel. It speaks of loving the Jews and acknowledging
God’s promise to them, while at the same time presenting the church (which is predominantly Gentile) as the fulfilment of all that God planned and purposed from the beginning. It presents the future in terms of either being in heaven (a spiritual place) or hell (also a spiritual place), while, at the same time, acknowledging that there will be a Millennial reign after which God will create a new heavens and a new earth. Is it any wonder the modern church is confused about end times? However, we cannot have it both ways. The Augustinian view of the kingdom is in direct opposition to that of the Jewish apostles and prophets. It is fine to admire Augustine as a man of faith, but if we are to hold onto his worldview, then we must reject the Hebraic one. They both cannot be right. If Israel has been rejected, then she cannot be restored. How can she be accepted and rejected at the same time? Either she is like the other nations or different from the other nations. If the kingdom has been taken away from her and given to the church, then how can the kingdom be restored to her? And if Augustine’s basic premise was wrong, how can his theology be right?
There are over twenty-eight-hundred references to the nation of Israel in the Bible, and that’s without counting the many references to Jacob as Israel and the many indirect references, such as “my people,” “Zion,” etc. There are, on the other hand, one hundred and five direct references to the church. Am I minimizing the call and role of the church? Not at all! I will speak of the glorious mystery of the church later. But I am trying to reestablish the biblical Hebraic worldview of the kingdom, which was presented by Jesus and the apostles. So many references to the literal nation of Israel cannot simply be dismissed and reapplied to the church. Neither can they be applied to the “one new man” comprising of Gentiles and Jews. To be sure, we can accept that the promises given to Israel are true for us as well, for the most part. It is legitimate and acceptable to interpret them that way; however, they still apply to the Jewish people.
The time has come for the church to face the truth about our attitude toward Israel. Either their promises are still valid, or they are not. If we accept that God has restored them back to their land, then we must also accept that He will fulfil all that He has spoken to them. It is reprehensible to say we love and support Israel while at the same time consistently undermining her biblical role and promises. What is the real reason we acknowledge her at all? Is it godly love and concern, or because we have no choice? Since we cannot deny that God has restored them to their biblical land after two millennia, then we have to accept that He is not done with them, right? So we are willing to surrender to them some sort of secondary, temporary role in the world, after which God will do what He really wanted to do all along. After all, the Father made a promise He has to keep. It’s like a bad marriage He has to complete by giving Israel a brief feeling of importance. Then He will do away with the earth and, of course, Israel will be no more. Is this not the real reason we refer to the Millennium as heaven and downplay its earthly role? Isn’t it because the Millennium presents Israel as head of the nations? Is that not the real reason we spiritualize it away? When was the last time you heard a pastor or Bible expositor excited about the Millennium and Jesus reigning from a literal Jerusalem? When did you hear some preacher talking about a new earth and not think he was a Jehovah’s Witness? To be sure, you have heard preachers speak of the “New Jerusalem,” but was it presented as having anything to do with Israel? Isn’t it true that when you think of the kingdom, you either think of the church or being in heaven with Jesus or both? Certainly, Jesus is the King and being with Him forever is enough to get me excited. But shouldn’t we know what the kingdom is? How can we seek it first, as the Master exhorted us, if we have no idea what it is we are seeking?
The time has come for the church to reinvestigate this subject of the kingdom. If what we present is not that which was understood by the prophets and apostles, then it cannot be correct. We must return the subject to its biblical culture and context. We must read the words of Jesus again and consider His audience and what He was communicating to them. We must stop looking through the lens of Greek philosophers and Western thinkers and return to the simple teaching of Scripture and its Hebraic roots.
Excerpt from “Israel Awakening: Why the Church Must Wake Up to The Centrality of Israel in the Plan of God” by PJ Hanley.
