1

ISRAELOLOGY
Part 3 of 6
by Arnold Fruchtenbaum

ISRAEL PRESENT
(continued)

Introduction

This article continues the discussion of Israels present theo-
logical role. Part 1 of Israel Present dealt with the outworking of
Gods Kingdom Program in this age and the relevance of the un-
conditional covenants and the Law of Moses in this
dispensation.
1
It concluded by discussing the Churchs relation-
ship to the unconditional Jewish covenants and the purposes of
Gentile salvation. This article considers Israel Present in rela-
tion to the Law and to the Church.

The Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses

The Unity of the Law of Moses

Two errors have developed in the minds and teachings of
many Christians that have contributed to the confusion over the
Law of Moses. One is the division of the law into ceremonial,
legal, and moral commandments. Based on this separation many
surmise that believers are free from the ceremonial and legal
commandments, but are still under the moral commandments.
The second error is the common belief that the Ten Command-
ments are still valid today while the other 603 commandments
are not. When confronted by a Seventh Day Adventist, the indi-
vidual taking this approach runs into problems concerning the
fourth commandment on keeping the Sabbath. All attempts to

1
CTS Journal 5 (JulySeptember 1999) contains: Israelology: Israel Present.
Part 1.
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

2
rationalize a Sunday-Sabbath (the first day) result in either direct
contradiction of Scripture or an inconsistent hermeneutic.

It must be understood that the Scriptures view the Mosaic
Law as a unit. When the word Torah, law, refers to the Law of
Moses, it is always singular, although it contains 613 command-
ments. The same is true of the Greek word nomos in the New
Testament. The division of the Law of Moses into ceremonial,
legal, and moral parts is convenient for studying the different
types of commandments contained within it, but the Scriptures
never divide it in this way. Neither is there any scriptural basis
for separating the Ten Commandments from the whole 613 and
making only the ten perpetual. All 613 commandments are a sin-
gle unit comprising the Law of Moses.

The principle of the unity of the Law of Moses underlies
James 2:10:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble
in one point, he is become guilty of all.
2


The point is clear. A person who breaks even one of the 613
commandments is guilty of breaking all of the Law of Moses.
This can only be true if the Mosaic Law is a unit. If it were not,
the guilt lies only in the particular commandment violated and
not in the whole law. In other words, if an individual breaks a
legal commandment, he is guilty of breaking the ceremonial and
moral laws as well. The same is true of breaking a moral or
ceremonial commandment. To bring the point home, if a person
eats ham, according to the Law of Moses, he is guilty of breaking
the Ten Commandments, although none of the ten says anything
about ham. The law is a unit, and to break one of the 613 com-
mandments is to break them all.


2
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture citations are from the American Stan-
dard Version (ASV), 1901.
3
A clear understanding of the Law of Moses and its relation-
ship to the believer (Jewish or Gentile) requires viewing it as the
Scriptures portray it: A singular unity cannot be divided into
parts that have been abolished and parts that remain. Nor, can
certain commandments be separated in such a way as to give
them a different status from other commandments.

The Law of Moses Has Been Rendered Inoperative

The plain teaching of the New Testament is that the death of
Christ rendered the Law of Moses inoperative. In other words,
the law in its totality no longer has authority over any individual.
This is evident first of all from Romans 10:4:

For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to
every one that believeth.

The Greek word for end, telos, can mean either termina-
tion or goal. Here, however, the evidence clearly favors the
meaning of end. For example, Thayer gives the primary
meaning of telos as:

. . . end, i.e. a. termination, the limit at which a thing
ceases to be, . . . in the Scriptures also of a temporal
end; . . . Christ has brought the law to an end.
3


Not only does Thayer give termination as the primary meaning
of telos, he also includes Romans 10:4 as belonging to that cate-
gory of usage. Nor is goal listed as a secondary or even tertiary
in priority of usage; it is fourth on the list. Arndt and Gingrich
give the primary meaning of the verbal form as bring to an end,
finish, complete.
4
The nominal telos has the primary meaning

3
Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Being
Grimms Wilkes Clavis Novi Testamenti, rev. ed. (New York: Harper, 1889;
reprint ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 61920.
4
William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. and ed. by
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

4
of: end . . . in the sense of termination, cessation.
5
They also
list Romans 10:4 under this category and list the meaning of
goal as third on the list.

In the final analysis, other Scriptures teach both truths: The
Messiah is the goal of the law, but He is also the termination of
the law. Since Christ is the end of the law, there is no justification
through the law (Galatians 2:16). This, was always true of justifi-
cation, but since the ending of the law, sanctification or
perfection no longer comes through the law (Hebrews 7:19).
Thus, it should be quite evident that the law ended in Christ. It
cannot function in justification or sanctification. It has been ren-
dered inoperative, especially for the believer.

Second, the law was never designed as a permanent
administration but only a temporary one, as is evident in
Galatians 3:19:

What then is the law? It was added because of transgres-
sions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath
been made.

In context, Paul stated that the Law of Moses was an addition to
the Abrahamic Covenant (3:1518). It was added for the purpose
of making sin very clear so that all will know that they have
fallen short of Gods standard for righteousness. It was a tempo-
rary addition until the seed (Messiah) would come; now that He
has come, the law is finished. The addition has ceased its func-
tion with the cross.


William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker from Walter
Bauers fifth edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), s.v.
, 810.
5
BAGD, s.v. , 810.
5
Third, Messiah introduces a new priesthood according to
the Order of Melchizedek, not according to the Order of Aaron.
The Mosaic Law provided the basis for the Levitical priesthood,
creating an inseparable connection between the Law of Moses
and the Levitical priesthood. Thus, a new priesthood required a
new law under which it could operate (Hebrews 7:1118). He-
brews 7:1112 argues that the law permitted only one type of
priesthood, the Levitical priesthood. That priesthood could not
bring perfection. As Hebrews 9:1110:18 explains, animal blood
cannot bring perfection; only the Messiahs blood could do that.

The Mosaic Law was the basis for the Levitical priesthood.
Doing away with the Levitical priesthood and replacing it with
the new priesthood of Melchizedek, required a new law. During
the tenure of the Law of Moses, the Aaronic or Levitical priest-
hood alone was valid (Hebrews 7:1317). Was there, in fact, a
change of the law? Hebrews 7:18 states that the Mosaic Law was
disannulled. Because it is no longer in effect, the new priest-
hood after the Order of Melchizedek replaced it. If the Mosaic
Law were still in effect, Jesus (a non-Levite) could not function
as a priest. The ending of the Mosaic Law allowed Jesus to be a
priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

Fourth, Ephesians 2:1415 indicates that the law was the
middle wall of partition that was now broken down:

For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down
the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh
the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in
ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one
new man, so making peace. . . .

As noted earlier, God made four unconditional eternal covenants
with Israel. God mediates all of His blessings, both material and
spiritual, through these four Jewish covenants. God also had a
fifth covenant which was temporary and conditional. The Mosaic
Covenant contained the Mosaic Law that temporarily served as a
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

6
wall of partition to keep the Gentiles as Gentiles away from en-
joying Jewish spiritual blessings. If the Mosaic Law were still in
effect, the wall of partition would still keep the Gentiles away,
but the death of Christ broke down the wall of partition. Since the
wall of partition was the Mosaic Law, God has done away with
the Law of Moses. Gentiles as Gentiles, because of faith, can and
do enjoy Jewish spiritual blessings as fellow-partakers of the
promise in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:234:7 provides the fifth line of evidence. This
passage looks upon the law as a pedagogue or a tutor over a mi-
nor to bring him to mature faith in the Messiah (3:24). Having
become a believer, the minor is no longer under this tutor, that is,
the Law of Moses (3:25). This passage clearly teaches that with
Messiahs coming, the law is no longer in effect.

As the sixth line of evidence for the annulment of the Mo-
saic Law, 2 Corinthians 3:211 focuses in on the part of the law
that most people want to retain, the Ten Commandments. Con-
cerning the Law of Moses, verse 7 calls it a ministration of
death. Verse 9 calls the law the ministration of condemnation.
These are negative, but valid, descriptions. Verses 3 and 7 spot-
light the Ten Commandments, the ones that were engraven on
stones. Therefore, the Law of Moses, especially as represented
by the Ten Commandments, is a ministration of death and a
ministration of condemnation. If the Ten Commandments were
still in force today, this would still be true. However, they are
no longer in force, for verses 7 and 11 state that the law has
passed away.

The Greek word used is katargeo, which means to render
inoperative. Since the passage focuses on the Ten Command-
ments, the thrust is very clear, they have passed away. In fact, the
7
superiority of the Law of Christ is that it will never be rendered
inoperative.
6

To summarize, the law is a unit comprising 613 command-
ments of which all have been rendered inoperative beyond the
cross of Christ. The law is in the Old Testament and offers a
teaching tool showing Gods standard of righteousness, as well as
mans sinfulness and need of a substitutionary atonement. It can
illustrate many spiritual truths about God. It can point the unbe-
liever to Christ (Galatians 3:2325). However, it has completely
ceased to function as an authority over the individual and is no
longer the rule of life for believers.

What about the moral law? Covenant Theologians generally
try to retain this aspect of the Law of Moses, thereby arguing that
the Law of Moses is still in effect. Robert Lightner has spelled
out the dispensational view of the moral law:

The moral law of God refers to those eternal principles
that reflect the nature of God. Dispensationalists do not
believe the moral law of God terminated at Calvary.
Neither do they believe . . . that the moral law of God and
the Ten Commandments are identical. McQuilkin
verbalized dispensational sentiments when he said, The
moral law is not equivalent to the Mosaic Law; however,
the Mosaic Law, which was added because of
transgressions, included the moral law. It included also the
ceremonial law, civil law, criminal law, sanitary law,
governmental law. But the moral law existed before
Moses and continues after the cross.

To do the things forbidden in the Ten Commandments
did not first become wrong when the Decalogue was
given to Moses and then to the children of Israel at Si-
nai. It had always been sinful to do those things. These

6
Dispensationalism does not insist that the Ten Commandments are still in
force. Thus, it avoids Covenant Theologys exegetical gymnastics to circum-
vent observing the Sabbath according to the way in which the Ten
Commandments actually require.
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

8
basic principles stem from the person of God and are as
eternal as He is.
7


The moral law did not begin with Moses and did not termi-
nate with Christ. The moral law is not identical to the Law of
Moses. It preceded the Law of Moses. Adam and Eve broke the
moral law long before Moses. Satan broke the moral law even
before Adam. The Law of Moses embodied the moral law as
does the Law of Christ, but it did not originate it.

A favorite objection to the dispensational view of the
Law of Moses is an interpretation of Christs statement in
Matthew 5:1718:

Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I
came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto
you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be
accomplished.

Although Covenant Theologians often cite this passage, they are
seldom consistent with it.

It is obvious that Jesus spoke of the Law of Moses. Yet no
Covenant Theologian accepts his own thesis, since he must be-
lieve in the abolition (in some form) of many commands of the
Law of Moses, if not most. The commandments concerning
priesthood and sacrifice are only one example: Others can be
cited (food laws, clothing laws, etc.). Many of the 613 com-
mandments no longer apply as originally written, regardless of
the semantics employed: (supersede, brought to greater ful-
fillment, bringing out its true meaning, et al.), clearly. If
Covenant Theologians limit the Law of Moses to only the moral
commandments, then their citation of Matthew 5:1718 errs.

7
Robert P. Lightner, A Dispensational Response to Theonomy, Bibliotheca
Sacra 143 (JulySeptember 1986): 240.
9
Verse 19 adds these least commandments, which includes more
than merely the moral commandments. The emphasis of verses
17-18 is on the entire law, all 613 commandments. Verse 19
reads:

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called
least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and
teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven.

True, Jesus did come to fulfill the law; but the Law of
Moses did not end at His coming, or during His life, but upon His
death. He spoke Matthew 5:1719 (including verse 19) while He
was living. As long as He was living He needed to obey the Law
of Moses in the manner that Moses commanded (not as the rabbis
had reinterpreted it).

As Mark 7:19b illustrates, while Christ was living, He also
foreshadowed the abolition of the law: This he said making all
meats clean (ASV).
8
Can it be any clearer than this that at least
the dietary commandments have been done away? Again, all
Covenant Theologians must admit that many parts of the law no
longer apply in the manner Moses prescribed. Have they been
done away with or not? To constantly claim that the Law of
Moses is still in effect and/or equating it with the Law of Christ,
while ignoring the details of that same law, is logically inconsis-
tent and theologically fallacious.

The Law of Christ


8
Editors note: the ASV follows the Critical Text. The Majority Text treats the
verses as a parallel to Matthew 15:17. In this case, Jesus is only speaking of
the digestive system protecting against defilement. Even so, the point stands,
because Acts 10:1115 and 11:59 pronounce meats clean, while Romans
14:13 treats meats as doubtful things. Whether or not Mark 7:19b reads with
the Critical Text, the New Testament abolishes the dietary laws.
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

10
The Law of Moses has been disannulled, so believers are now
under a new law. Galatians 6:2 calls this new law the Law of
Christ; Romans 8:2 refers to it as the Law of the Spirit of Life. This
is a brand-new law, totally distinct from the Law of Moses. The
Law of Christ contains all the individual commandments from
Christ and the Apostles applicable to a New Testament believer.
A simple comparison of details shows that the Law of
Christ is not and cannot be the same as the Law of Moses. Four
observations are crucial. First, many commandments are the
same as those of the Law of Moses. For example, nine of the Ten
Commandments are also in the Law of Christ. Second, many are
different from the Law of Moses. For example, there is no Sab-
bath law now (Romans 14:5; Colossians 2:16) and no dietary
code (Mark 7:19; Romans 14:20). Third, the Law of Christ inten-
sifies some commandments in the Law of Moses. The Law of
Moses said: love thy neighbor as thyself (Leviticus 19:18). This
made man the standard. The Law of Christ says: love one an-
other, even as I have loved you (John 15:12). This makes the
Messiah the standard; He loved us enough to die for us. Fourth,
the Law of the Messiah provides a new motivation. The condi-
tional Mosaic Covenant was the basis of the Law of Moses, so
the motivation was: do, in order to be blessed. The unconditional
New Covenant is the basis of the Law of Christ, so the motiva-
tion is: you have been (and are) blessed, therefore, do.

The reason so much confusion exists over the relationship
of the Law of Moses to the Law of Christ is that each contains
many commandments, which are similar to the others. There-
fore, many presume the retention of certain sections of the law.
However, the law was an indivisible entity, so the similarity of
certain commandments cannot imply a partial retention. The Bi-
ble contains a number of legal codes, such as the Edenic,
Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic, New, and Kingdom. A new code may
contain some commandments resembling the previous code,
without suggesting that the previous code is still in effect. While
certain commandments of the Adamic Code were also found in
11
the Edenic Code, it did not mean that the Edenic Code was still
partially in force: It ceased to function with the fall of man.
Likewise, the Law of Christ contains many commandments simi-
lar to the Law of Moses. For example, the Law of Christ includes
nine of the Ten Commandments, but this does not mean that the
Law of Moses is still in force.
Christs death rendered the Law of Moses inoperative, so
we are now under the Law of Christ. There are many different
commandments: Under the Law of Moses, pork was forbidden to
eat, but under the Law of Christ, no such prohibition exists.
There are many similar commandments, but they are nonetheless
in two separate systems. Today, if a believer steals, he does not
break the Law of Moses, but the Law of Christ.

The Sabbath

The Sabbath was the sign, seal, and token of the Mosaic
Covenant. As long as that covenant was in effect, the Sabbath
Law was mandatory. Dispensationalism teaches that since the
Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative, then the Sabbath
command no longer applies. Covenant Theologians, with their
hypocritical insistence that the Law of Moses is still in effect,
also insist that the Sabbath law applies. However, they totally
ignore what Moses wrote about Sabbath-keeping even to the
extent of changing its day of observation from Saturday to
Sunday, which the Law of Moses would forbid. They break the
very rule that they claim to obey.
9


Israel and the Church

9
Many Jewish believers also insist on mandatory Sabbath keeping. Though
they inconsistently base it on the Law of Moses, they at least retain it as the
seventh day of the week. The apologetics for mandatory Sabbath keeping de-
rive almost exclusively from the Old Testament for obvious reasons: The New
Testament commandment has no command for believers in general or Jewish
believers in particular to keep the Sabbath. The New Covenant Scriptures
themselves nowhere support the claim that Sabbath observance is part of the
New Covenant. In fact, if anything, they would teach the opposite.
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

12

The Evidences for the Distinction of Israel and the Church

The first evidence is that the Church began at Pentecost.
The relationship of Spirit-baptism to the Church establishes this.
Colossians 1:18 refers to the Church as the Body of Christ. Ac-
cording to 1 Corinthians 12:13, entrance into this Body is by
Spirit-baptism. Acts 1:5 regards Spirit-baptism as yet future. Acts
11:1516 shows that Spirit-baptism actually began in Acts 2:14,
even though Acts 2 does not explicitly mention baptism. Peter,
while defending his entrance into a Gentiles house in Acts 10 to
preach the gospel, points out that the Gentiles received the same
experience of Spirit-baptism as did the Jews (10:15). Peter states
that the Holy Spirit fell on them [the Gentiles] (Acts 10:4446),
as the Holy Spirit once fell on us [Jewish believers] at the begin-
ning. The beginning for the Jewish believers was in Acts 2:14.
10

Peters reference to Acts 1:5 in Acts 10:16 shows that Acts 2:14
fulfilled the Acts 1:5 prophecy. Since Spirit-baptism is necessary
to the existence of the Church, and since this particular ministry
of the Holy Spirit only began as of Acts 2, the Church did not
exist before then, but only began in Acts 2. Moreover, there is no
biblical evidence that the Church began either with Adam or
Abraham or that it even existed in the Old Testament. Matthew
16:18s use of the future tense shows it did not exist during
Christs earthly ministry either.

The second evidence is that three events in the life of the
Messiah were prerequisites to establishing the Church. The first
of these was His atoning death: The Church would be built on
Messiahs blood. It is no accident that Jesus began predicting
His coming death (Matthew 16:21) immediately after announc-
ing that He would build a new entity, the Church (Matthew
16:18). The second event was Christs resurrection (Ephesians

10
Note Acts 2:10, which clarifies that the many people from various countries
(Acts 2:811) were all Jews or proselytes.
13
1:2023). The Church is the Body, Christ is the head of the
Church, but He became its head only by virtue of his resurrec-
tion. The third event was His ascension (Ephesians 4:711).
The Church could only become a functioning entity once the
Holy Spirit provided the necessary spiritual gifts. According to
this passage, the Holy Spirit could not give these spiritual gifts
until after the ascension.
The third evidence is the mystery character of the Church. A
mystery is a New Testament truth not revealed in the Old Testa-
ment (Ephesians 3:35, 9; Colossians 1:2627). While Scripture
does not call the Church itself a mystery, it so labels a number of
features that are unique to the Church. There are four such fea-
tures: (a) The body concept of Jewish and Gentile believers
united into one body is a mystery (Ephesians 3:112). (b) The
doctrine of Christ indwelling every believer, the Christ in you
concept, is a mystery (Colossians 1:2427; 2:1019; 3:4, 11). (c)
The concept of the Church as the Bride of Christ is a mystery
(Ephesians 5:2232). (d) The Rapture with its corollary events of
the resurrection of the dead and the translation of the living is
called a mystery in 1 Corinthians 15:5058. These four mysteries,
each relevant only to the Church, show that the Church itself is a
mystery and distinct from Israel.

The fourth evidence is that the Church is called the one new
man in Ephesians 2:15. Paul mentioned three groups in this con-
text (2:113:6): Israel, the Gentiles, and the one new man. He
distinguishes this one new man from both Israel and the Gentiles.
It is comprised of believing members from both: that he might
create in himself of the two . . . This one new man is identified as
the Church in 2:16 (the body) and 3:6 (same body).

The fifth evidence is that 1 Corinthians 10:32 distinguishes
the same three groups (Jews, Greeks, and the Church) from each
other. Since this contrast comes well after the establishment of
the Church, all three groups coexist simultaneously.

The Use of Israel in the New Testament
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

14

The term Israel occurs 73 times in the New Testament
referring each time to national ethnic Israel. It may refer to Jews
in general or believing Jews in particular, but it is always ethnic
Jews. It never refers to the Church.

The Israel of God

Galatians 6:16 is the only passage adduced by all Covenant
Theologians as evidence that the Church is the spiritual Israel, or
that Gentile believers become spiritual Jews. The verse does not
prove any such thing. The passage reads:

And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them,
and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

The Book of Galatians is concerned with Gentiles attempting
to attain assurance of salvation through the law. The ones deceiv-
ing them were Judaizers, who were Jews demanding adherence to
the Law of Moses. To them, a Gentile had to convert to Judaism
before he qualified for salvation through Christ. In verse 15, Paul
states that salvation is by faith, resulting in the one new man. He
also mentions two elements: circumcision and uncircumcision.
This refers to two groups of people: Jews and Gentiles, two groups
already mentioned by these very terms in 2:79.

In verse 16, Paul pronounces a blessing on members of the
two groups who would follow this rule of salvation through faith
alone. The first group is the them, the uncircumcision, the Gentile
Christians to whom and of whom he devotes most of the epistle.
The second group is the Israel of God. These are the circumci-
sion, the Jewish believers who, in contrast with the Judaizers,
followed the rule of salvation by grace through faith alone.
Covenant Theologians here ignore the primary meaning of kai
(and) which separates the two groups and instead insist on a sec-
ondary or lesser meaning (even) in order to blur distinctions
15
within the body of Christ. Thus, the only support of the theory
that that the Church is spiritual Israel (or that Gentile believers
become spiritual Jews) is a secondary meaning of one word, kai.
The secondary meaning hardly applies in this verse containing a
blessing for both Jewish and Gentile believers. This kind of cir-
cular reasoning persists, despite the remarkable absence of
scriptural support.
11


Israel Today

The re-establishment of the Jewish State in 1948 has not
only thrown a wrench into amillennial thinking, but it has also
put a chink into much of premillennial thinking. Amazingly,
some Dispensationalists conclude that the present State of Israel
has nothing to do with fulfillment of prophecy. On what
grounds do they so flagrantly dismiss the present State of
Israel? The issue bothering them is that not only do the
returning Jews reject Jesus, but the majority of the returnees are
atheists or agnostics, not Orthodox Jews. Certainly, Israel today
does not fit biblical passages speaking of its return as a
regenerated nation. However, this reasoning fails to see that the
prophets spoke of two international returns. First, Israel will
regather in unbelief in preparation for tribulational judgment. A
second worldwide regathering in faith will then follow in
preparation for the blessings of the messianic age. Once
recognized that the Bible speaks of two distinct regatherings,
the present State of Israel easily fits into prophecy.

One passage clearly dealing with a return in unbelief in
preparation for judgment is Ezekiel 20:3338. This passage draws
a simile between the Exodus and the future return. At the Exodus,
God brought the entire nation of Israel out of the land of Egypt into
the Sinai Peninsula. While in the Wilderness of Sinai, Gods plan

11
See S. Lewis Johnson, Paul and the Israel of God: An Exegetical and Es-
chatological Case-Study, in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed.
Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 18196.
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

16
for Israel was to accomplish two things: 1) to give them the Law of
Moses; and 2) for them to build the Tabernacle through which
much of the law could then be observed. Afterwards, they were to
enter the Promised Land. Due to a series of murmurings and rebel-
lions, God finally entered into judgment with His people at Kadesh
Barnea (on the very border of the Promised Land). The judgment
condemned the entire generation (from the age of twenty upward)
to forty years of wandering.

After the forty years in the wilderness a whole new na-
tion,
12
a nation born as free men in the wilderness and not as
slaves in Egypt, was able to enter the land under Joshua. Ac-
cording to Ezekiel 20, a similar thing will occur in the future.
God will first regather His scattered people from all over the
world. That this gathering is not in faith, but in unbelief, is seen
from the fact that it is with a mighty hand, and with an out-
stretched arm, and with wrath poured out. Verses 33 and 34
repeat this phrase twice. This regathering in unbelief occurs af-
ter God pours wrath on the people. It is no accident that the
birth of the State of Israel was out of the Nazi Holocausts fires.
Once this gathering has fully taken place, God will enter into
judgment with His people: The Tribulation judgments will
purge out the rebels. This will leave a whole new regenerated
nation, which will be able to enter the messianic land of Israel
under King Messiah. This passage clearly speaks of a regather-
ing in unbelief in preparation for judgment.

Another passage, Ezekiel 22:1722, also speaks of a regath-
ering in preparation for judgment. Furthermore, it clearly relates
this regathering in unbelief particularly to Jerusalem. While pri-
marily dealing with the regeneration of Israel, Ezekiel 36:2224,
nevertheless, makes it clear that a regathering takes place before
the regeneration. Isaiah 11:1112 also deals with the same ques-

12
Only two Egyptian-born men, Joshua and Caleb, survived the wilderness
wanderings to enter the land.
17
tion. It refers to the regathering in faith in preparation for the Mil-
lennial Kingdom as the second international regathering. So,
when did the first one occur? It cannot refer to the Babylonian
return because that was a regional and not an international return
as the text demands. Hence, the first international regathering is
the one that would be in preparation for judgment. It is clear that
this passage speaks of two international regatherings while em-
phasizing the second one. The second regathering will be in faith,
but not the first.

Passages speaking of a regathering in unbelief in prepara-
tion for judgment ought to be understood in relation to other
passages referring to a regathering in faith in preparation for
blessing. Although none of the aforementioned passages have
specifically stated that this regathering in unbelief precedes the
Tribulation period, Zephaniah 2:12 does:

Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O
nation that hath no shame; before the decree bring
forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce
anger of Jehovah come upon you, before the day of
Jehovahs anger come upon you.

The preceding section (Zephaniah 1:1418) describes some
features of a time called the great day of Jehovah, or as other
translations have it, the day of the Lord. This is the most common
Old Testament name for the Tribulation. Zephaniah 2:12 speaks
of an event that occurs before the great day of Jehovah begins.
Verse 1 commands the nation of Israel to gather together. The
Lords anger against the people shows that this is a gathering in
unbelief. Verse two uses the word before three times in reference
to the preceding passage regarding the Tribulation. One of these
uses of before includes the before the day of Jehovah itself.
While other texts speak of a regathering in unbelief in prepara-
tion for judgment, this passage clearly states that this regathering
in unbelief will occur before the Tribulation actually begins. The
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

18
restoration of the Jewish State fulfills prophecies speaking of a
regathering in unbelief in preparation for judgment.

The Remnant of Israel and the Olive Tree

The doctrine of the Remnant of Israel teaches that a believ-
ing segment of the Jewish people always exists. The New
Testament teaches that the Remnant of Israel today consists of
Jewish believers in the Messiahship of Jesus. Although the key
New Testament passage is Romans 911, Pauls summary of his
Israelology, 1 Peter 2:110 is another passage on the Remnant of
Israel that is relevant to Israel Present.

1 Peter 2:110

Peters words in 1:12 indicate that he did not write the
epistle to the Church at large, nor to a body of Gentile believers,
but to Jewish believers living outside Israels borders within a
Gentile population. The term Dispersion is a technical Jewish
term for Jews who live outside the land of Israel.
13


Furthermore, Peter keeps mentioning that his readers live
among the Gentiles (2:12; 4:3). While many try to make the term
Gentiles mean unbelievers, that is neither its Jewish usage nor
even New Testament usage as a simple concordance search
shows. Peter uses the term Gentile in its normal meaning as non-
Jew as he addresses Jewish believers living among a Gentile
population. Expressions such as vain meaning of life handed
down from your fathers (1:18) have clear Jewish overtones dis-
tinguishing the Jewish believers from their past lives under
Rabbinic Judaism. In this section of the epistle, Peter draws a
contrast between the remnant and the non-remnant. His purpose

13
All commentators agree that the two other uses, John 7:35 and James 1:1,
refer to the Jews of the Diaspora. No reason for making 1 Peter the exception
exists, since it fits well into Peters calling as the Apostle to the Circumcision
(Galatians 2:78).
19
is to show that while the non-remnant has failed in its calling, the
remnant has not failed.

To summarize, Peter does not draw a distinction between Is-
rael and the Church or between unbelieving Jews and believing
Gentiles. The distinction is between Jews who believe and Jews
who do not believe. His point is that while Israel as a whole failed,
the believing Remnant of Israel has not failed, and so the Remnant
of Israel fulfills the calling of the nation as a whole. Paul makes the
same point in his theology of Israel in Romans 911.

The Olive Tree

Paul begins by giving the illustration and the principle
(Romans 11:16). The connecting for, if, or now provides the rea-
son for believing in a future national restoration. The illustration
is that of the firstfruit and the root which refer to Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, and the Abrahamic Covenant. They are holy because God
separated and consecrated them for a divine purpose. Israel as a
nation is the lump and the branches. The principle, based on
Numbers 15:1721, is that the holiness or consecration of the
firstfruits and the root passes on to the lump and the branches.
Just as the firstfruits sanctify the whole harvest (the lump), even
some day all Israel will also be sanctified. The Abrahamic Cove-
nant made with the patriarchs is the basis for the expectation of
Israels future national salvation.

The natural branches are the Jews (Israel) and the wild
olive branches are the Gentiles (11:17). The Olive Tree in this
passage does not represent Israel or the Church, but it repre-
sents the place of spiritual blessing. The root of this place of
blessing is the Abrahamic Covenant. Paul makes the same
point that he made in Ephesians 2:1116 and 3:56. The Gen-
tiles, by their faith, have now become partakers of Jewish
spiritual blessings. This Olive Tree represents the place of
blessing, and now Gentiles have been grafted into this place of
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

20
blessing and made partakers of its sap, the Jewish spiritual
blessings as contained in the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Gentiles are not taker-overs, but rather partakers of
Jewish spiritual blessings. Paul spoke of grafting of wild olive
branches into a good olive tree. Critics of Paul claim that he
misunderstood horticulture, because grafting a wild olive
branch into a good olive tree would be unnatural. That is
exactly Pauls point. Likewise, it is unnatural to graft Gentiles
into this place of blessing originating from the Abrahamic
Covenant. Paul does not regard this as normal; he says that it is
contrary to nature (Romans 11:24). Normally, such a graft
would be unfruitful. The point is that God is doing something
unnatural: He brings Gentiles into the place of blessing based
on the unconditional Jewish covenants.

Next Paul warns (11:1822) that the basis of Gentile blessing
is faith, not merit. If the Gentiles are to remain in the place of
blessing, they must continue in faith. Israels failure should teach
them a lesson. He does not deal with individuals as such (i.e.
individual believers and unbelievers), but with nationalities of
Jews and Gentiles. The Jews were in the place of blessing as a
nationality, but because of their unbelief, they were broken off.
Now Gentiles are to be found in the place of blessing; but if they
fail in faith, they also will be broken off from the place of blessing.
This is not a loss of salvation, but a removal from the place of
blessing. The warning is that the basis of Gentile blessing is faith,
not merit. He warns Gentiles against boasting over the natural
branches, for the wild branches are not self-sustained, but are
sustained by the root: the Abrahamic Covenant, a Jewish covenant.

To be continued




21

Arnold Fruchtenbaum earned a B.A. degree from Cedarville College, a
Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from New York
University. He is the founder of Ariel Ministries in Tustin, CA, a min-
istry to Jewish people around the world; he holds Bible conferences in
most English speaking countries. Arnold is also an adjunct professor at
Chafer Theological Seminary. CTS accepts Dr. Fruchtenbaums bi-
annual five-week study tour of Israel for credit. His e-mail address is
arielhq@pacbell.net.