HOW SHOULD WE PRAY FOR ISRAEL? (2) Andrew Larkin

PART 2: TWO ALTERNATIVE VIEWS

Around 15 years ago I heard well-respected pastor and teacher, John Hosier, give a helpful overview on five different views people in the church take on Israel.  Whilst I cannot remember all five positions, or the details of each, John’s outlook (as with so much of his material) has helped my thinking.

We can start with what might be termed the “Zionist” position.  This view emphasises God’s commitment to His people as the God of covenant.  Of all the nations, God chose Israel to be His special people and He has not turned His back on them or revoked those promises.  The continued existence of the Jewish people and the return to the land signify this.  With this view, there is an expectation is that one day the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices will be undertaken again not, to deal with our sins, but as a memorial, looking back to Jesus’ work of atonement on the cross.  This view often goes alongside a particular view around the End Times which sees the rapture (Christians going to be with the Lord) as taking place before Christ’s return.  The belief is this will then lead to many Jews turning to Jesus ahead of his return and 1000-year reign on earth before a final rebellion followed by the day of judgement.

At the extreme end, this view can lead to seeing God as having two people on earth – Jew and Gentile as separate – rather than the reality of the “one new man in Christ” which Ephesians 2:11-22 speaks of.  The church ends up being a “side-road” or a Plan B, with Israel still being the focal point of God’s plans and purposes.  Even more troubling, theologically, is those who hold that Jewish people are saved by virtue of their ethnicity, rather than through faith in Christ.  Regarding current events, the mistake comes when people combine biblical Israel with the nation state of Israel today.  In Scripture we see, in Paul’s words, “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (Romans 9:6) and, historically, Israel as a nation-state ceased to be from AD 138 through to the mid-twentieth century.  We cannot combine the two.  When we do, it can lead Christians to affirm all Israel does and denounce everyone else, which leads to all sorts of moral problems.

The contrasting view can be termed “Replacement theology.”  This view emphasises the decisive change that has come through Christ’s life, death and resurrection.  Jesus kept the Law and brought it to its completion.  Food laws, sacrifices, circumcision, temple and even the land served as markers distinguishing Israel from the nations, but in light of the finished work of Christ, they are now obsolete.  We are in the realm of the “New Covenant” and the marker of God’s people is faith, those who have received the Holy Spirit.  This view sees Israel as significant historically, but with no present or future significance. 

This view can end up denying the importance of the physicality of God’s dealings with His people and spiritualise everything.  It can be right in what it affirms, e.g. the Law brought to completion, one new man in Christ etc. but wrong in what it denies – that the completion and fulfilment of core aspects of faithful Israel in the Old Testament means Israel itself has been replaced by the church.  It can tend to mesh all the covenants in the Old Testament into one category, “the old covenant”, without recognising different things are happening in the Noahic, Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. Arguably, it is the Mosaic which is designated the Old Covenant, which leaves questions around the ongoing application of the others.  It also raises questions around God’s character.  If God makes promises to a particular people (as he does with other nations in the Old Testament as seen in his dealings with Ishmael and Esau, for instance) what does it say about Him if that suddenly goes?  Can Israel really be reduced to a long historical prologue, the warm-up act for the church?  Romans 9-11 strongly suggests there is much more going on and God has not finished with Israel. 

At the extreme end, this view can lead to a dismissing of Israel and a virulent strain of anti-Semitism.  One proponent of this view was dismissed from the Church of England for exactly this.  The danger, when thinking of the conflict today, is to paint a binary picture which sees Israel as the problem – the opposite of where the Zionist position can lead.

Those who hold to the Zionist view tend to charge all those who do not hold the position as advocates of “Replacement” theology.  This is not true.  On the flip-side, the “Replacement” view is in danger of having nothing to say about Israel now, or in the future.  Some things are not so much “replaced” but fulfilled and transposed into a New Covenant key as we see, for example, with the transition from Passover to the Lord’s Supper.

Is it possible to affirm the ongoing relevance of Israel in the plans and purposes of God without conflating biblical Israel with political Israel?  Are there other options on the table aside from Zionist and Replacement theologies?  I believe there is.