Modern Israel and Bible Prophecy

MINISTRY is aware that within the Christian church, widely diverging views are held regarding the role of modern-day Israel and her prophetic significance. Doubtless, no single denomination exists in which there is absolute unanimity on this subject (including the Seventh-day Adventist Church). Therefore, this article is not presented as the final word, but as a means of stimulating thought and awakening investigation. We welcome comments and alternate viewpoints.—The Editors.

Is the present state of Israel, with its flourishing settlements, a fulfillment of prophecy? Should the return of 3 million Jews to their ancestral homeland mean something to Christians? Was the repossession of Jerusalem by Jews in 1967 forecast by Jesus? And are all these things signs of the times?

Many Christians see prophetic significance in these events; others see little or none. Although both believe as they do on the basis of Scripture, a consideration of certain Biblical themes may shed light on the issues.

God's promises to Abraham that he would become a great nation and possess the land in which he dwelt were conditional on his loyalty to God. Likewise, the promises were to be fulfilled to his children if they served God as he did (Gen. 17:1-9; 18:19). Later God specifically declared to Abraham's descend ants, the covenant people, that He would keep the covenant He had made with them and their ancestors only on the condition of their obedience to Him (Lev. 26:3-13; Deut. 7:12; 28:1-14). On the other hand, if they were unfaithful to the covenant by disobedience, they would experience suffering, loss, and eventual exile and destruction (Lev. 26:14-38; Deut. 28:15, 36, 37, 45, 47-51, 62-64). However, God did hold forth the hope that in response to repentance a restoration from exile might be granted (Lev. 26:40-45).

In the course of time, Israel did indeed lose their land and the divine blessing of prosperity because they departed from God in heart. The divine prediction came true, and they were banished beyond the Euphrates in Babylon. God intended that the invasions and conquest by Nebuchadnezzar would serve as a discipline to help them learn obedience (Jer. 25:1- 7; 46:26-28). While the people were concentrated at Ramah awaiting deportation to Babylon, the promise of restoration based on obedience was reiterated (chap. 31:15-17, 27-34). God's gracious purpose was to restore them to their land after seventy years of exile if they would return to Him with all their heart (chaps. 29:10-14; 16:13-16).

During their exile, Ezekiel also encouraged them with God's promises of restoration accompanied by reformation and obedience on their part. Subject to their repentance, Ezekiel prophesied of a new temple, of Israel's lost sheep being brought home again by the Great Shep herd, and of the dried bones of the nation being resurrected to life again (Eze. 36:17-38; 43:10, 11; 34:11-15; 37:20-23).

Under divine direction the Jews re turned to Israel from 537 B.C. onward (2 Chron. 36:15-23). Zechariah predicted that the Temple would be rebuilt and the throne restored if they would diligently obey (Zech. 1:2-4, 12-17; 6:15). They were then to fulfill their mission of living to the praise of God as His witnesses. If faithful, they would be, as God had always intended, the priests of the world and a blessing to all nations. Foreigners would learn of the true God and come to worship Him at the Temple (Isa. 40:1, 2; 43:10, 21; 61:4-9; 60:1-3; Zech. 2:11; 8:22, 23; Micah 4:1-5).

Thus Isaiah and Jeremiah before the Exile, Ezekiel during the Exile, as well as Zechariah and Micah immediately after the Exile, sought to encourage the Jews to return in a spirit of loyalty to God's original purpose for them as a missionary nation and to depend upon His promise of renewed favor.

Moses had warned Israel, at the be ginning of her national existence, that continued disobedience would bring not only anxiety and suffering but uprooting and dispersal, from which he promised no restoration (see Deut. 28:49-67). Daniel understood the implications of Moses' warning, and feared that the prophecy of the 2,300 days indicated that, because of their continued sinfulness during that time of banishment, God could not restore Israel from their seventy-year exile. Hence, his heartbroken prayer for forgiveness and restoration (Dan. 8:26-9:23). In answer he was assured that Jerusalem would again be built, and that his people would be granted another five centuries of probation "to make an end of sins," and that within this period the Messiah would come to them (chap. 9:24-27).

However, the companies that returned from Babylon were small, their efforts halfhearted, and their obedience so defective that less and less room appeared for God's promises of blessing to be fulfilled. The first returnees, numbering about fifty thousand, were dilatory in rebuilding anything but their own homes. Temple worship was conducted negligently by unfaithful priests. The people intermarried with the heathen and departed from God (Ezra 2:64; Haggai 1:9; Mal. 1:8, 12, 13; 2:1, 2, 7, 8, 11-16; 3:7, 13, 14). And when the Messiah did come, the nation rejected Him and thereby brought upon itself the tragic result Gabriel had predicted that though rebuilt, Jerusalem would be destroyed a second time. Jesus Himself, when leaving that Temple never to return, quoted Daniel's very words (Dan. 9:25-27; Matt. 23:37- 24:2, 15). Forty years later the Romans destroyed city and Temple, and a hundred years later the Jews were banished completely from the site.

But before these tragic events, the Lord's apostles had already revealed how God would fulfill His promises of blessing upon Israel. They applied the promises to the new believers in Christ from all nations who were assuming the mission of Israel. Those who believed in Christ became Israelites; a new heart replaced circumcision as the symbol or sign of the covenant (Gal. 3:29; 6:15). Gentile believers began to fill up the household of God (Eph. 2:11-13, 19, 20). The apostle Peter called them the new "chosen race" (1 Peter 1:1; 2:9, 10). Before Jerusalem began its long, sad experience of being trodden down by the Gentiles (Luke 21:24), the apostles made it clear that its next restoration would be as the Holy City from heaven, and that the divine promises of prosperity and peace for a repentant Israel would be fulfilled in the new earth (Heb. 11:8-10, 15, 16; Isa. 65:17-25; 2 Peter 3:13). The picture Ezekiel painted of a prosperous, faithful Judah being divinely protected against the invasion of an envious Gog and Magog never happened. But it will find its fulfillment in the final assault of Satan against the people of God and his destruction (Ezekiel 38 and 39; Rev. 20:7-9). The twelve city gates, the life-giving river, and the fruitful trees, seen by Ezekiel as characteristics of a re stored Israel, would be fulfilled in the pearly gates, the river of life, and the tree of life in the Holy City as seen by John (Eze. 47:1, 2, 8, 9, 12; 48:30-35; Rev. 21:10-13; 22:1, 2).

Some readers believe that the Biblical expression "the last days," which appears in a number of prophecies and promises of Israel's restoration, always refers to the period just before the second coming of Jesus. Thus they believe that the literal descendants of Abraham are to fulfill Bible prophecy in our times, and often quote such Old Testament verses as: "When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shall be obedient unto his voice, ... he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them" (Deut. 4:30, 31). "Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord ... in the latter days" (Hosea 3:5).

It is true that the expression "the last days" or "the latter days" often refers to the end of the world, especially in the New Testament passages that speak of that event. Seldom is this the meaning of the expression in the Old Testament, however. The phrase "in the last days" occurs only three times in the King James Version of the Old Testament. Its equivalent, "in the latter days," occurs eleven times in the Old Testament of the King James Version and twelve in the Old Testament of the Revised Standard Version. With one exception, all are translated from the same Hebrew words be— 'acharith hayyamim. (One occurrence in Daniel comes from the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew.) The Hebrew expression literally means "in the after days." The usual rendering in modern versions (such as The New English Bible and The New International Version) is simply "in days to come."* Other equally good renderings include "in the future" (T.L.B.),t " 'in the future days' " (Berkeley),! " 'in the days to come'" (N.A.B.),§ and "later on" (T.L.B.). A consideration of some actual verses will demonstrate the correctness of these renderings.

Jacob told his sons what would happen to them "in the last days" (Gen. 49:1, K.J.V.). Fulfillments were apparent in most cases soon after the settlement in Canaan and were complete by the reign of David, that is, seven hundred years "in the future" from the time Jacob spoke.

Balaam told the king of Moab what Israel would do to Moab "in the latter days" (Num.' 24:14, K.J.V., R.S.V.). These "days to come" (N.E.B., N.I.V.) occurred when Moab was conquered by David, and again when Moab was severely chastised by Israel in the days of Ahab. There are no Moabites today for Israel to do anything to.

Moses knew that after his death Israel would forsake the Lord and suffer the consequences. This would occur "in the latter days" (Deut. 31:29, K.J.V.). Ac cording to Judges 2:7-11, Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua and the elders that outlived Joshua, and then the decline and trouble predicted by Moses began.

How then should we understand Moses' earnest words at the beginning of his farewell speech to Israel? After warning them of the chastisement that would come upon them if they were unfaithful, he said, "But if from thence thou shall seek the Lord thy God, thou shall find him. . . . When thou art in Jiibulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days,... he will not forsake thee" (Deut. 4:29-31). Were not Moses' words taken to heart and fulfilled over and over again in the deliverances effected by the judges, and again many times during the kingdom, and eventually in the Babylonian captivity? Are we justified in demanding that this promise find a fulfillment just before the second coming of Christ at the end of the world? These words have found fulfillment scores of times, as acknowledged by the Levites in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. When reviewing the history of Israel they declared, "And in the time of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest them from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies" (Neh. 9:27).

Prophetic statements

The prophets before the exile were still hopeful that Israel would recover their faithfulness to God. Both Isaiah and Micah presented to them a glorious picture of the possible elevation of Jerusalem "in the last days" (Isa. 2:1-5, K.J.V.; Micah 4:1-5, K.J.V.). Neither prophet was saying anything more than Moses had said seven hundred years earlier—that restoration was possible only if Israel would walk in the light of God's leading.

Isaiah knew that first there would have to be the exile to Babylon (Isa. 39:6, 7). After the Exile he foresaw a return across the Euphrates, from what in his day was known as Assyria, as a kind of repetition of the Exodus" (chap. 11:11, 15, 16). The context indicates that we deceive ourselves and those who hear us if we interpret this "second" deliverance as a return of Israel in our times from their dispersion. The words clearly indicate that it was to be a deliverance from the Babylonian exile—a deliverance that was still two hundred years in the future when Isaiah wrote. It would be the next great act of God after the deliverance from Egypt.

The prophets who lived during the Exile period also spoke of what would happen in later days. Jeremiah predicted that both Moab and Elam, which were also subdued by Nebuchadnezzar, would be restored "in days to come" (Jer. 48:47; 49:39, N.E.B.). The "latter days" for these nations occurred after the power of Babylon waned. The captives of Moab and Elam would have benefited by repatriation under the humanitarian policy of the Persians in the same way that Israel did. Thus, the "latter days" for Israel came in the same way and at the same time (chap. 23:20; 30:24, K.J.V.). In these passages the prophet expressed the earnest hope that his people "in days to come" would benefit from the disciplinary experience of captivity and eventual deliverance by taking time to consider the kind providence that had been over them through it all.

Ezekiel's use of these expressions parallels that of his contemporary Jeremiah. The exiled prophet sought to en courage his fellow exiles to take heart after they had heard that Jerusalem had been destroyed (Eze. 33:21). He pictured not only the return of the people to Judea (chaps. 34, 36, and 37) but a condition of such peace and plenty that it might well arouse the covetous ambitions of powerful northern neighbors (chaps. 34; 36; 37; 38:2, 6; 27:14; 32:26). But he assured them that though Gog and Magog should come "in the latter years [or days]," their great Deliverer would protect them and destroy the invader (chap. 38:8, 16). These dangerous "years [or days] to come" could have arrived at any time after the return to Judea in 537 B.C., and doubtless they would have occurred if Israel had become prosperous enough through her faithfulness under divine blessing to invite such invasion.

Phrases using "until"

Besides the passages containing the phrase "the latter days," two other frequently quoted scriptures deserve our attention. Both use the word "until." "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24). "Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25).

In contemporary English the word "until" almost always bears a temporal sense. We customarily use it to imply that an activity or a situation, existing up to a certain point, will cease at that point. Because of this common usage, some have concluded that Luke 21:24 and Romans 11:25 were fulfilled in 1967 when the Israelis regained Jerusalem from Gentile control. This event, they believe, was a sign that the times of the Gentiles have ended, and that the Jews will now get over their "hardness of heart" and turn to the Lord. Are we justified in such a belief based on these verses? The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says that the conjunction "till" or "until" may mean not only "to the time that" but "during the time that" and "so that at length." A look at other examples from Scripture will enable us to catch the significant differences.

In Daniel's report of his first vision he says, "I considered the horns, and . . . there came up among them another little horn. ... I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit. . . . The judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then be cause of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: and I beheld even till the beast was slain. ... I saw in the night visions, and . . . one like the Son of man came ... to the Ancient of days. . . . And there was given him ... a kingdom" (Dan. 7:8-14). Twice in the course of his description he says he be held till, but in neither case does he cease beholding at that point. Here is an instance where the second meaning of "until" is in use. Daniel meant to say that he beheld "during the time that" the thrones were placed, and the beast was slain, and that he continued to behold during all the other events of the judggent scene while they were being presented to him. According to Koehler and Baumgartner's Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, the Hebrew word translated "till" may mean "up to," "until," or "while." Grammatically, then, we may read Jesus' statement this way: Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles during the time that or while the Gentile period runs its course. The grammar does not require us to under stand Him to say anything at all about what might happen to Jerusalem after that. And if we take His words in this sense, we have no conflict with the rest of the teaching of Scripture.

Consider Jacob's experience. At Bethel the Lord promised the fleeing Jacob that He would accompany him on his journey to Haran and bring him safely back to the land of his birth. Then He added: "I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of" (Gen. 28:15). Surely we would not want to understand that the Lord would be with Jacob only "up to the time of" his return. The Lord did not intend to say that He would forsake him after that. The emphasis here is upon the purpose of God's being with him during the time of his absence "so that at length" He could bring him back.

Now let us apply this meaning to the language of Paul. The context of Romans 9 to 11 makes it clear that not all physical Israelites are included in the true Israel of God. Unbelieving descendants of Israel are not Israel; only believers, whether Jewish or Gentile, belong to Israel. But the present unbelief of the majority of the Jews, disappointing as it was to Paul, was actually causing the Christian mission to be concentrated upon the Gentiles. Paul sees that in the overruling wisdom of God, blindness in part is happened to Israel "so that at length" the fullness of the Gen tiles may come in. They will become part of the Israel of God, and so all true Israel will be saved (see Rom. 11:25, 26). This is the end of Paul's argument. He does not take the additional step of saying that Jewish unbelief would cease when the Gentiles had had their full opportunity, although obviously nothing would be dearer to his heart. Nor are we required by his language to look for this to hap pen, as much as we would like to see it.

But there is an even more instructive example. In both Luke 21:24 and Romans 11:25 the word "until" is translated from the Greek achris hou. The identical expression is used also in He brews 3:13, and there it is not translated "until" at all, but receives a translation in version after version that amply justifies our conclusions so far. That pas sage reads: "Exhort one another daily, while [the R.S.V. and N.f.V. have "as long as"] it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin." If we use this meaning in Luke 21:24 and Romans 11:25, we have: "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, while the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." "Blindness in part is happened to Israel, as long as the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

The election of Israel by God to be His special people was not primarily an election to salvation, though it would have resulted in that. It was an election to service (Ex. 19:5, 6; Isa. 43:10, 21; 61:6). It was His intention, confirmed many times, that they should be His people forever (2 Sam. 7:23, 24). But even the original offer of the covenant at Sinai contained a plain "if" (Ex. 19:5, 6). After centuries of pleading and discipline designed to help them to accept His divine call to service from the heart, God eventually accepted their refusal (Matt. 21:43; Rom. 11:20). He now offers that privilege to any who will accept it, Jew or Gentile. Thus, to Jews as individuals the door both to service and to salvation remains open. We cannot, then, interpret either Luke 21:24 or Romans 11:25 as a renewal of the call to national service, for that has been withdrawn. Neither can we take these verses as implying a new call to salvation, for that call has always been open.

Still a distinct people

In spite of Israel's failure to fulfill the terms of their mission as His own special nation, God has chosen in His wisdom to keep His promises by preserving them as a distinct people (Gen. 12:2; 15:5; 18:18; 22:16-18; 26:4; 28:14). He would not destroy Israel utterly, in spite of all they might do (Lev. 26:44, 45). Even near the end of the road He could say, "I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed" (Mal. 3:6). Thus, though Babylonians, Romans, Ammonites, Moabites, Phoenicians, Assyrians, and Hittites have all ceased to exist, the Jews have continued as a separate and distinct people. Their very existence is a witness to the truthfulness of God.

If one takes the predictions of Old Testament prophets about the return from the first dispersion and expects them to be fulfilled to literal, unbelieving Israel nineteen centuries after the second dispersion, he ignores the conditional nature of Hebrew prophecy both in its threatenings and its promises (see Jer. 18:7-10). He also takes no account of the fact that Daniel's prophecies, which foretold the rebuilding of Jerusalem after the first dispersion and its destruction again, did not mention another restoration before the judgment and the eternal kingdom (see Dan. 7:26, 27; 9:24-27; 11:43-12:3). He also leaves unexplained Jesus' silence about any restoration after the vineyard of the Lord had been taken from the unfaithful husbandmen and given to others (see Matt. 21:43).

We conclude, then, that the reoccupation of Jerusalem by modern Jews is not an event included in the purview of prophecy. The nation and people of Israel have not returned to Palestine in penitence and faith in order to fulfill God's purposes for them. Though modern Israelis are to be commended for their energy and idealism, their present prosperity is not the result of special divine favor except as His blessing comes upon all diligent effort. Christians may indeed take an interest in the affairs of Israel, but not on the basis of Bible prophecy.