Category: Theology

I have taught Apologetics for 48 years.   

 

One issue of faith and evidence is that people weigh things differently.  No one really believes without evidence, but people are made up in such ways that different evidences strike them differently. 

 

1. For example, the famous professor John Warwick Montgomery, Th. D. and Ph. D, was influenced by British Analytic Philosophy.  For him, the worthy evidence was strictly empirical.  The historical documents were trustworthy and proved the resurrection.  So that settled it.  In this regard, I sometimes tell skeptics to simply read Luke and Acts. The presentation there is so very credible.  

 

2. Dr. Kenneth Kantzer, Ph. D. from Harvard, the dean of Trinity 

Evangelical Divinity School for many years, a great theological teacher, thought the evidence for the resurrection was good, but unless it was part of the total world view that had convincing power, it was not enough.  For Kantzer, the biblical world view in comparison to other world views was the key.

 

3.  However, those with direct mystical experiences have what is direct empirical evidence to them. This direct evidence to them settles it.  St.  Theresa describes her experiences as certain.  So also Heidi Baker, the famous missionary to Mozambique. If you read her books, her amazing experiences are certain. Her descriptions are sometimes like St. Theresa of Avila. Those with visions don’t always get them as a product of super hard disciplines like Theresa.  The Apostle Paul was simply overwhelmed with a vision on the way to Damascus.  After that, he argued from the Scriptures, but before that, he did not see the weight of the Scriptures that proved the case for Yeshua. The famous child painter, Akiani, has an amazing catalog of experiences since her childhood. You would well to look her up. I have a book of her amazing paintings. Some people just know by reading a text of Scripture.  They know by the witness of the Spirit to them. 

 

4. Then there the direct experiences of those who have had near-death experiences.  Some who were not believers before becoming believers and become certain of their faith.  The book by John Burke, Imagine Heaven, seems quite credible to me.   

 

5. I should add those who have seen contemporary miracles.  That settles it for them. I have directly witnessed great miracles but was already a believer. 

 

Now I think that some weigh negative evidence against the biblical world view differently. For believers, the negatives are less weighty than their experience of the evidences.  For others, the negatives such as the problem of evil and suffering or the disproportionate distribution of blessing and suffering are so weighty that all of the positive evidence is discounted.  I think this is a big mistake. As human beings, we have to embrace mystery and the truth that there is enough evidence that we should not discount it due to the negatives.  

 

I think it is well to keep all this in mind in our dialogue. 

 

I think this is all very central to our reflections. 

 

I recently wrote a post entitled Morality-phobia.  

However, upon reflection, I think the better term is “relgiophobia.”  In that post, I noted that the accusation against those who profess and seek to foster traditional morality in society is that they are homophobes, transgenderphobes. LGBTQphobes, and more.  I noted that this was really wrong. Traditional morality proponents are not afraid of these groupings, but afraid for them and how their orientation will destroy their lives than the lives of others who they convince to join them in these lifestyles.  But I now think that the term that I should use is “religiophobia.” Most civilizations from all eras were civilizations that promoted a moral vision for human sexual behavior and for the relationship between male and female. The societies forested clear sexual distinctions.  Marriage, raising children, and sexual distinctions can be studied for Chinese Confusion, ancient Israel, Indian, classical Roman, African and Islamic societies. Yes, there are differences but there are important levels of agreement across civilizations (see C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man.)  The teaching of the New Covenant Scriptures brings correction and advance beyond all these cultures.  

If there was a modicum of consistency in the movements attacking traditional Christians and Jews,  the attackers would realize that their attacks are against most historic cultures and that all historic cultures are religious cultures.  I think their fear is really toward all traditional religious cultures and their ethical teaching on sexual distinctions and sexual ethics in general.   I think the real fear is in them. They have “relgiophobia.” I define it here. “Religiophobia is the fear of traditional religions and their moral teaching.”  Now some believers do fear these new movements that are accusing us.  They wimp out because they do not want to pay the price of standing for historic moral norms. 

I would add one more point.  It is that atheists and agnostics often have “relgiophobia” because they are committed to explaining all of reality in terms of scientific naturalism, which is not possible and is philosophically incoherent.  These scientists and philosophers who hold to the view of scientific naturalism also have this phobia. It is also the case that some of these folks want to be free to define their own personal life direction without anyone reminding them of classical moral norms and accountability to God. 

 

I got into trouble with some of the leaders in Israel because of a paper I did some 12 years ago refuting the wider hope view of one of my Messianic Jewish leadership friends.  My paper was called the Narrow Wider Hope.  My paper was partly misunderstood because I used the word salvation for people who were in a pre-salvation state of grace because they were seeking the Truth and responding to the Truth though they did not know the Gospel.  They had not refused the Gospel. However, I did not claim that they would be entering an eternal good destiny without accepting Yeshua or that they would be given a post-death opportunity. My conclusion, in my original paper, said that I believed that such people would be led on to accept Yeshua sometime in their life and before death, though I said I could not absolutely prove this.  My point is that there are not two categories of people, the saved who have been born again through Yeshua and the lost who are on their way to Hell unless through the Gospel they repent and are born again. Certainly, these two categories exist and are primary. But the Bible clearly teaches that there are other categories by which to understand people. Romans 1, and 2 show four categories of people that have not yet accepted the Gospel. 

 

Romans 2 is speaking of people who have not yet embraced the Gospel.  There are two categories of Jews. In Romans 2:7 Paul describes Jews who “By perseverance in doing good are seeking glory, honor, and immortality,” these will receive according to 2:10, “Glory, honor and shalom, (eternal life), to everyone who does good—to the Jew first.  

 

The second category of Jews are those who according to 2:9, “Are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness.”  For them, “There will be trouble and hardship.” (2:9) Also, he says for them there will be, “wrath and fury.” (2:8) Of these Paul notes that though circumcision is of value, if one keeps the Torah, but “if one breaks the Torah, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.”  (v. 2:25)  

 

Then there are two categories of Gentiles who have not yet heard the Gospel.  He uses the same verses to describe Gentiles, the first category are those who, “By perseverance in doing good are seeking glory, honor, and immortality—eternal life,” these will receive according to 2:10, “Glory, honor and shalom to everyone who does good… and also the Greek.”

 

Then there is the second category of Gentiles or the fourth overall.  Those Gentiles who in 2:9, “Are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness.”  For them, “ There will be trouble and hardship.” (2:9) Also, he says for them there will be, “wrath and fury.” (2:8)  Of this one, Paul says that though he is not circumcised, “Keeps the righteous decrees of the Torah, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision.” (2:26)

 

Paul says that God’s judgment is according to the revelation given and that the Jews who “have sinned according to the Torah will be judged by the Torah.”  Gentiles can also be judged by the revelation of God in nature and culture, by what the Reformers called common grace.  He says in v. 14, 15, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the Torah, do by nature the things of the Torah, they are a law unto themselves, even though they do not have the  Torah. They show that the work of the Torah is written in their hearts.”

 

Paul even notes in this that the one who is not physically circumcised will “judge you who with the written code and circumcision—break the Torah.”

 

There are other texts that support this Pauline perspective.  I will just name two. Acts 10:34 is very strong. Peter before preaching the Gospel to the household of Cornelius says, “I truly understand that God is not one to show favoritism, but in every nation, the one who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”   Also, John 1:9 shows that truth is revealed to people who have not heard the Gospel. “He is the light that lights every man.” (KJV) 

 

There are other comments that are important.  First, we should not think that Romans 2 is teaching works righteousness either by keeping the written Torah or by keeping the Gentile understanding of the law for Gentiles.  Much has been written on this and we agree with this perspective. Upholding and keeping the Torah does not mean that one by his own works is saved. Nor does it mean that one can live up to the detailed commands of the Torah. The emphasis on blood sacrifice shows that upholding the Torah did not mean that and was not expected.  Rather it was a matter of faith/faithfulness or a heart of faithfulness to God and his covenant though one falls short. For the Gentile, it is the heart that is seeking the truth and willing to obey it when revealed. All comes down to the right heart. 

 

Secondly, Romans 2 is part of an argument building to Romans 3 where Paul declares that the general condition of Jews and Gentiles is that they are lost.  The category of those who are saved in Yeshua and those who are lost are the categories that most encompass human beings. The two categories of those who are lost in Romans 2, who do not seek glory and honor and immortality, are the largest categories of mankind.  The Scriptures indicate that those who do seek the truth readily and easily embrace the Gospel, for Yeshua said if people had really known the Father they would have accepted him. (John 5:46, 8:42) Missionaries sometimes find tribes who are prepared and ready for the Gospel. It is an easy persuasion.  

 

My point is that if anyone really is seeking the Truth and glory, honor and immortality, they will be led on to Yeshua.  God will bring the missionary and in some cases, we have known, has given visions and dreams leading people to Yeshua. 

 

In addition, Yeshua and Paul make it clear that there are two categories of those who profess to believe in Yeshua. Those who continue in sin will not enter the Kingdom of God (I Cor. 6:9,10).  These are those that Yeshua warns in Matthew 7:21-23, and in Luke 6:46, that they will not enter the Kingdom of God but will be told to depart from Him in the judgment. 

 

In conclusion, another way to speak of categories of people is to say that the Bible gives us three categories of people that include bothJew and Gentile, the saved, the lost and those who are seeking the Truth sincerely but have not yet come to Yeshua. They are seeking by the work of the Spirit (John 1:9).  Again, this third category includes Jews and Gentiles. The lost are those who are not seeking the Truth and also includes those who profess to believe in Yeshua but are continuing in sin. They are still lost. Romans 3 makes it clear that outside of an explicit profession of Yeshua and walking faithfully with Him, the overwhelming state of people is that they are lost.  But thank God, there is an opportunity for lost people to hear the Gospel and be saved!

 

  

 

 

Pentecostal/Charismatics and non-charismatic evangelicals sometimes live in different language worlds.  This produces deep divides that are not necessary even if there is no agreement about some of the issues of theology.  Thankfully these divides are not as great as a generation ago since there have been dialogues, and leaders of both orientations are joined in cooperation in organizations like the World Evangelical Alliance.  Yet sometimes I come across leaders who are still in their more isolated bubble and have not come to yet understand the other. For example, some Evangelicals who would not identify as Pentecostal/Charismatic do have significant experiences of the Holy Spirit and his leading, and speak of the “still small voice” and of the Spirit showing the meaning of Scripture.  Pentecostal/Charismatics should not think that Evangelicals are all rationalists that believe all knowledge is only by rational empirical processing. Augustine himself taught that all true knowledge comes from the illumination/revelation of the Spirit. However, there are Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who have a mostly rationalistic bent. Here are some points that we need to ponder if we are to not be like ships passing in the night without understanding the other.  

 

Pentecostal/Charismatics generally believe in the gift of prophecy today and many in the existence of prophets today.  They almost all believe that prophets today are not 100% accurate but with the gift of the Spirit to all believers, God expects all to test and hear God for themselves and for prophecy to be confirmed by leaders in the community and by the person who receives a prophecy.  God intentionally then has a prophetic gift where his people no longer depend on the 100% accuracy of the prophet as in the pre-New Covenant period, but on their own hearing and confirmation. Evangelicals who claim that only a 100% accurate rule for prophecy can be accepted (or the person could be stoned!) preclude the possibility for mutual progress.  Pentecostal/Charismatics generally believe that the continuing work of the Spirit today means that we continue to receive revelation. The idea of receiving new revelation strikes those who do not know and understand Pentecostal/Charismatics as an alarming claim, but it is not so. Here are some points about that. 

 

1. The word “revelation” is used by Pentecostal/Charismatics as a parallel synonym term to “illumination” as used among evangelicals.  Evangelicals want to reserve the word revelation for those prophets in the Bible and those who could write Scripture. However, it is obvious that if something is illuminated, then one can see it and it is revealed.  Both believe that the Holy Spirit helps us understand the meaning of the Bible. New insight that is proven out by study of the Bible in context is the experience of both. Aside from heretical and strange groups, Pentecostal/Charismatics do not mean that revelation provides them with an understanding of the Bible that is not to be tested by good Biblical study that proves it to be so.  Craig Keener’s Spirit Hermeneutics is the best book I know on this subject.  God speaks to us and shows us the meaning of his Word but this understanding has to be tested by the Biblical text!! 
2. Pentecostal/Charismatics also use the word revelation for God showing them things that are not in the Bible.  Some who are not Pentecostal/Charismatics think that by this they believe in having a corpus of revelation that is equal to the Bible and is authority.  Pentecostal/Charismatics do not believe this but accept that the foundations of doctrine are only in the Bible. However, they do believe that God by experience in the Spirit shows us how to approach deliverance from demons, or how to pray more effectively, or the roots of the problems in a city.  The Bible does not tell us everything we need to know; not our vocation, not our calling in the Body, not whom we are to marry or where to live. This comes by the leading of the Spirit. 
3. Pentecostal/Charismatics use the Bible as a jumping-off point by analogy of something the Spirit is saying today in prophetic exhortations.  This kind of jumping-off point by analogy is common in the New Testament use of the Hebrew Bible. There are many books by scholars showing this usage. Such jumping off is not an exegesis of the meaning of the text.  The text in context is still always the key for Bible interpretation. We try to train our prophetic speakers to say in such contexts that they are not claiming their words to be the meaning of the text.  
4. Pentecostal/Charismatics minister in words of knowledge or prophecy that is accurate about persons they never met.  They have been called out of audiences, and their lives have been described. It is amazing to behold. The accuracy sometimes is stunning. Some also give words about events to come and they come about.

 

Maybe Evangelicals and Pentecostal/Charismatics can at least understand what the other is saying.  Maybe they will not agree, but at least they will not misunderstand what the other is saying. Yes, prophecy can go bad and be dangerous.  I wrote a book on one church that did fall into error The Dynamics of Spiritual Deception.  There are keys to understanding how this happens and how to avoid it. 

 

In using these two terms together, I am speaking of the joining of two distinguishable concepts.  Dispensationalism refers to an interpretative approach to the Bible that goes back to John Nelson Darby from the middle of the 19th century.  Many are familiar with the distinctions of Dispensationalism.  The classic statement of it was in the Schofield Reference Bible (1909) while the greatest work of Systematic Theology was by Luis Sperry Chafer the leader of Dallas Theological Seminary (the 1930s and 40s)  This established the theology with great detail. These are key distinctions of classical dispensationalism and their problems.

 

1.  A rigid distinction between law and grace.  The New Testament presents a covenant of grace contrary to the Old Testament as a dispensation of law.  We are no longer under law but grace. One can be saved and continue to live in sin. Any other view is said to be adding works to salvation by grace.  The dedicated life is a second but not required step. This has given rise to hyper-grace theologies and hyper-grace leaders with all its dangers. It abandons the applicability of the Torah.
2. A rigid distinction between Israel and the Church.  Like historic Pre-Millennialism (before Darby) Dispensationalism affirms the fulfillment of the prophecies made to Israel.  But the catch is that when a Jew becomes a follower of Yeshua, his destiny is no longer with his ethnic nation, but is now with the Church.  Therefore, continued Jewish life in the Messiah would not be fitting. This is why in my early days of leadership in the Messianic Jewish movement in the 1970s, we were attacked by people who believed this. 
3. The way they made the distinction of Israel and the Church (and there is a distinction rightly to be made) was part of what led to their view of the rapture.  To keep Israel and God’s work with the Church separate, the Church needs to be removed before the 7 year Tribulation. In my youth, it was taught that giving up this view of the rapture was the beginning of the slide to liberalism. Then God again will work through Israel.  The Church with Jewish believers will be out of here. This means that the Church will not be the instrument at the end to make Israel jealous. Nor will Jewish believers before the rapture. They are not seen as the “saved remnant” of Israel that is still part of the destiny of their nation.  It also means that that Messianic Jews are not part of the irrevocable calling of Israel. (One can do a workaround so that the work of making Israel jealous is remembered seven years later when Israel comes to Yeshua. I have seen moderates assert this).
4. The classical view was cessationist on the gifts of the Spirit.  The supernatural gifts of I Cor. 12-14 were only for the transitional age in the first century before the New Testament was written down.  There is no gift of prophecy. There is no gift of apostle or prophet today. It was anti-charismatic or non-charismatic. 
5. The Gospel is not the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Kingdom of God did not come even partially in the coming of Yeshua and Pentecost. 
6. They fear the idea of the unity of the Church (John 17:21) as only leading to a false ecumenicism and deception.  

 

I could say much more but want to be brief.  Today there is a new trend called Progressive Dispensationalist that questions many of these tenants, but most of these are still pre-Tribulation rapture people.  Today Dallas Seminary accepts the Progressives and is a much different place. Progressives are moving closer to my view, historic pre-millennialism.

 

Classical Dispensationalism was also Fundamentalist.  Fundamentalism describes a narrow orientation that is sometimes viciously critical of others that do not follow rigid ideas of separation and purity.  Separation for purity is almost a badge of honor. 

 

There is a fear of contamination.  It tended to cause splits. When combined with Dispensationalism, it holds as suspect all who are not also like them as Dispensationalist Fundamentalists.  It leads to a sectarian approach. It is a narrow Orthodoxy and not a broad Orthodoxy. It will split from and condemn those who do not tow the mark. One of the most glaring historical examples is the 1957 rejection of Billy Graham because he cooperated with the mainline Protestant Church leader whom the Fundamentalists consider suspect. The attack was vicious.  An early example was the closed Plymouth Brethren who condemned taking communion with any other than closed brethren. The sectarian division is characteristic. 

 

Dispensational Fundamentalism is a dying movement.  It produces very little today in world missions which is now mostly growing by Pentecostals and new stream charismatic networks.  So why take the time to deal with this? It is because we still fight aspects of this both in theology and the narrow spirit. For example, the roots of hyper-grace teaching are in this movement though hyper-grace teachers do not endorse the whole system.  The opposition to the role of law is also still very common despite the role of law in classical Christian theology. In addition, there is a severe criticism of charismatic movements, even a vicious slander at times and misrepresentation. The idea of Jewish life in Yeshua is also rejected and opposed.  So, what is to be done? Pray and proclaim a better presentation of Biblical truth. We have experienced this spirit of Dispensational Fundamentalism. The great scholar of yesteryear, Edward John Carnell, called it Orthodoxy gone cultic. Thankfully this is a dying movement. 

By Daniel Juster

I write from Israel just before many will sit down for their Thanksgiving dinner in the United States.

The Pilgrims who saw themselves as living out a spiritual journey analogous to Israel, celebrated the first and second Thanksgivings.  They saw themselves as going through the sea like Israel and entering the promised land.  The native Americans, after the Pilgrims suffered terrible losses, helped them to survive.  They had a great feast, I think I remember for three days.  They celebrated with the Native Americans.  If my memory serves me right, they did this one more time, but it was not continued. 

Abraham Lincoln connected to this meaning and called for its celebration in a time of Civil War.  It was amazing for him to call for a Thanksgiving Day while the War was not yet over.  It was being won by the north.   From that time the day was etched deeply into the conscience of Americans.  Thanksgiving was a harvest thanksgiving festival.  The Pilgrims connected it to the parallel Biblical celebration of Sukkot or Tabernacles.  Thanking God for his protection, survival and provision as individuals and as a nation were the central themes. 

Today, the far left seeks to pretty much destroy all that is good in the American heritage.  Now there are native Americans who say that the day should not be celebrated because the coming of the Pilgrims led to displacement and genocide.  Yet how sad to lose a day that joined Americans together as a people and to dismiss one day that showed native American and Pilgrim (white English people) celebrating together.  How sad to also forget Lincoln and the fight against slavery and his enjoining of this holiday  Can nothing in the American heritage be left as good and not trashed by the radical left?  If people who came later committed crimes against the native Americans, and they did indeed, that does not invalidate the Pilgrims and Lincolns call for the Holiday. 

Many American Israelis celebrate the Feast of Thanksgiving here.  Lots of Turkeys are sold.  It is not a public national celebration.  Yet amazingly the stores in the malls advertise black Friday sales.  Would that Israel would be more conscious of the tie of American’s to the Jewish Biblical Feast and how relevant both are to all of us.

We again summarize the keys to the second coming of Yeshua.  They are revival and passion for Yeshua, unity, world missions and evangelism, making Israel jealous and a leadership that is passionate for the other four.  The other issues of eschatology are less important than these five pillars. If one believes and acts on the basis of these five and is passionate about the Messiah’s return, then this would be sufficient.  However, God wants us to have more understanding of what we will face at the end of this Age. In the Bible, the last days began with the coming of Yeshua. The Kingdom of God has broken into this age and is in partial manifestation in communities of the Kingdom, in the preaching of the Gospel with signs and wonders that show the Kingdom and in influencing societies with biblical principles.  However, this partial Kingdom reality leads to the last of the last days with events that lead to the second coming of Yeshua. The Bible indicates that before the return of Yeshua, there will be a time of judgment on the earth and difficult times for Yeshua’s followers. The prophets call this the Day of the Lord, where God comes in judgment on the nations, but ultimate rescue for his people.  But until that rescue, we are sometimes called to suffer for his sake. 

 

The five pillars view does not fit with the idea that the Church will gradually take over the world and rule it without the cataclysmic intervention at the second coming of Yeshua.  This view is known as the radical Kingdom now view and also Post Millennialism. There are two versions. One is that the Church will gradually take over, then rule the world for 1000 years and then Yeshua will return after a last rebellion after the Millennium.  The variation is that the Church basically takes over and then Yeshua returns and is here with us for the rule of the Age to come. Sometimes the millennium is seen as symbolic of this church age and sometimes it is the Age where we rule with him for 1000 years after the takeover.  No wonder people are confused. The New Testament does not support these views. Rather, it says that Yeshua’s return will be after a time of trial and that the man of sin, the Anti-Christ will be first revealed. (II Thes. 2)

 

Five Pillars theology thus best fits with the idea that there will be a great tribulation in the future, but that the Church will be growing and gaining a harvest and completing its work in this age.  The time of persecution and trial may be one element in unifying the Church. 

 

The Five Pillar view does not fit well with the idea of Yeshua bringing the rapture of the saints and the resurrection seven years before He returns to the earth (the pre-tribulation rapture).  This is because the rapture and resurrection take place on the basis of the Church completing its mission of world evangelism and making Israel jealous. This is connected to unity that leads to the world believing and that we are with him where he is.  (John 17:21 ff.) It is tied to us attaining the fullness of the stature of the Messiah. Then He comes and fivefold leadership has completed its work in this age. We have to be here to make Israel jealous and for them to call on Yeshua. So this leads to a post-tribulation rapture view or at least a rapture near the very end of that period. 

 

So the Five Pillar view has room for the difficulties of the last days as we read in Isaiah,25, 26, Joel 3, Ezekiel 38, 39, Daniel 11, 12, Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, II Thes. 2 and  the Book of Revelation. The Church will pass through a Passover trial and an exodus into glory. 

 

In addition, the Five Pillar view is very compatible with the prophecies of Israel returning to the Land and in Ezekiel 36, in unbelief.  This actually sets up a situation which makes national repentance and turning to Yeshua much more feasible, even imaginable, since there will be one center in Jerusalem for Israel and Jewry in the Diaspora.  

 

The Five Pillar view is a victorious eschatology but not a utopian idea of take over before he returns (postmillennialism)  This leaves two other views of the interpretation of the millennium. The ones still left are the a-millennial view and the pre-millennial view. The a-millennial view usually sees the millennium as symbolic of the church age or of the saints ruling during this age from heaven.  The pre-millennial view sees one more age in history, on this earth, the seventh age as taught in Judaism and only after that one thousand years do we enter into the new heavens and earth. Historically, Amillennialists did not have a place for the restoration of the nation of Israel to their Land and the ultimate salvation of the Jewish people.  They tended to be replacement theology. But there are several examples of a-millennialists that did see ethnic Israel saved in the end and even a return to their land. Some even said that the promises to Israel would be fulfilled in the “letter or in the better.” For these people, the next state after Yeshua’s return is the fullness of the New Heavens and the Earth (Rev. 21).  All are in their resurrected/translated state.   

 

The Pre-Millennialist argue that one more stage before the New Heavens and earth is taught in the prophets.  That in that Age that people would live a very long time without pre-mature death. They will marry and have children in a glorious age of peace.  Also, Israel and the Church would rule the nations, who are not in resurrected form yet. Israel’s place in the Land and the description of the nations in the prophets better fits a Premillennial view.  I agree with this argument. 

 

Pillar #4. Before the Return of Yeshua Israel must be Made Jealous so that she will turn to Yeshua. 

 

Romans 9-11 and Romans 11 especially provides us with very important information about the return of Yeshua.  First, it lets us know that the Jewish people, ethnic Israel, is still God’s elect people even if they did not as a whole under their leaders submit to their King.  The most amazing and key verse is Romans 11:28, 29, “Concerning the Good News, they are hostile for your sake, but concerning chosenness (election), they are loved on account of the fathers— for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. “   

 

The nation of Israel still counts.  Paul gives us an eschatological vision of how God will deal with the situation of Israel not embracing the Messiah.  In Romans 11:5 he notes that there is a saved remnant of Israel. This assumes that Jewish followers of the Messiah are still Jewish and part of ethnic Israel.  This being part of Israel is given pronounced meaning in Romans 11:16 where Paul says, “It the firstfruit is holy so is the whole batch of dough.” The firstfruit of dough was offered to God and burned in baking bread so that the whole loaf could be eaten.  The idea here is that the saved remnant makes the whole nations still holy, set apart. It is parallel to Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 7 that the believing spouse sanctifies the unbelieving spouse and their children are holy. Thus, the saved remnant plays a key role in Israel’s ongoing election. 

 

Then Paul notes that the present situation of Israel’s unbelief is temporary.  In 11:11 he says of corporate Israel, that they did not fall in a way that is beyond recovery.  Then in 11:25, he states that the present hardening is partial and temporary until something called the fullness of the Gentiles takes place.   After that, Israel will turn to Yeshua and fulfill the covenant promise of Isaiah 59:20, 21, Isaiah 27:9 and Jeremiah 31:31-34. Thus “all Israel will be saved (v. 26) and God will take away their sin.  

 

This reversal for Israel will take place when they are adequately made jealous (desirous) though the witness of Jew and Gentile together.  Paul states that salvation has come to the Gentiles for the purpose of making Israel jealous (11:12). Their loss meant riches for the Gentiles but their fullness (restoration) will bring much greater riches.  Some have connected this to the first pillar of world revival. However, it is more. Paul as a Jew gives the example for Jewish believers. We are to magnify the ministry, the mighty and powerful work of the Gospel with its signs and wonders.  But then Gentiles are to do the same. This will cause a growing some of ethnic Israel to be saved. Then comes the amazing conclusion. “If their rejection leads to the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead.”  (11:15) Most commentators believe that life from the dead is more than world revival, but that the text is speaking of the resurrection from the dead that takes place in the return of Yeshua. This fits Matthew 23:39 were Israel sees him again only after they call out to him, “Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord.

 

We return to the idea of the fullness of the Gentiles, which could connect us to Matthew 24:14, that the Gospel will be preached adequately to all nations. So the fullness can mean that the full number of Gentiles on this side of the second coming is saved.  However, the word fullness can connote the same thing as the fullness in Eph. 4 where the Body of Believers is said to attain the full measure of the stature of Messiah’s fullness.  So we can connect this text to the first three pillars. That the Church that makes Israel in a final way will be a Church in revival, in unity and completing the work of the great commission.  However, we also have to note that the Church will have to share Paul’s pain at Israel’s present unbelief and gain a deep heart for the salvation of Israel. The teaching of the election of Israel and Israel’s ultimate salvation will be a unifying passion of the worldwide Church.  So this fourth pillar is key to moving history to the climax of the second coming, namely that the Church including the Messianic Jews share a joint mission to see Jewish people saved so that the growing remnant of Jewish disciples of Yeshua will eventually lead to all Israel being saved. 

 

This fourth pillar was understood by some of the great Puritan interpreters in the 17th century, embraced by the Lutheran Pietists in the 18th century, and given practical implementation by Zinzendorf and the Moravians.  He purposely sought to show love to the Jewish people and even planted underground Messianic Jewish synagogues, the most known as recorded in the archives of Herrnhut was in Amsterdam, Holland.  He knew that this was a key to the second coming. So also the planters of Christ Church Anglican (1840), a Lutheran-Anglican cooperative effort was for the purpose of seeing the Jewish people embrace Yeshua as part of their predicted return to the Land.

 

One other point that is coming to the fore today.  It is that for the Church to make Israel jealous will require a deep alignment of the Church with Israel and the Messianic Jews, and honoring and mutual submission.  This is based on the fact that the root supports those of the Gentiles who have been saved and seeing the implications of a deep relationship of unity in the One New Man of Jew and Gentile.  Romans 11 and Eph. 2 gives us a definition of the Church as those form all nations who have been joined to Israel and her destiny for the sake of world redemption. They are joined to Israel through being joined to Yeshua who is the King of Israel and joined to the saved remnant of Israel, the Messianic Jews who are still part of the nation as a whole as the saved remnant of Israel.