The Restoration of Israel

Introduction

The subject of the restoration of Israel has been a focus of NT scholarship since the early nineties. This can be seen in writings such as those by N. T. Wright,[1] M. Fuller,[2] M. M. B. Turner,[3] or in volumes of collected essays such as those by M. J. Scott.[4] The accent of such scholarship is that the Jews of the Second Temple still expected restoration because the restoration under Ezra and Nehemiah was incomplete. So, for example, the return of Jews from Babylonian Exile was partial, the temple that was built was a shadow of the Solomonic temple, no Davidic monarchy was re-established, and there was no fulfillment of prophecies relating to the Israel’s position of lordship over the nations. Some Jewish writings of the inter-testamental period therefore looked for fulfillment of these things.

As a matter of historical analysis, it is asserted that if the Jews looked for restoration, then they must have considered themselves to be “in exile” in the land. Thus, Wright remarks, “The need for this restoration is seen in the common second-temple perception of its own period of history. Most Jews of this period, it seems, would have answered the question ‘where are we?’ in language which, reduced to its simplest form, meant: we are still in exile”.[5] Whether this is the view of NT writers remains to be examined.

Fuller’s analysis of Second Temple literature offers four ideas of restoration: i) the physical return of the remaining Diaspora; ii) the gathering of a righteous group from within the land of Israel; iii) the gathering of the lost ten tribes; and iv) an allegorization of Israel’s re-gathering.[6] Of course, Fuller accepts that the data offers a more complex picture, but these four ideas represent an opening analysis. In this article we want to discuss the idea of an expectation of a physical return of the Diaspora.

Distinctions

There are several distinctions to mark in this area which centre on words that occur in the scholarly literature.

  • Proclamation – the restoration of Israel was being proclaimed as a possibility dependent on the repentance of the people.
  • Inauguration – the restoration of Israel was being inaugurated with the bestowal of the Spirit upon John the Baptist and Jesus, and upon the early church.
  • Effect – the restoration of Israel was being put into effect with the calling out of a remnant from Israel who would constitute the restored people after the wicked had been removed from the land.
  • Demonstration – what the restoration of Israel would be like was being enacted in the parables and exorcisms of Jesus, and later in the miracles of the apostles.

These ideas are not inconsistent or mutually exclusive. The two difficult notions are that the restoration of Israel was inaugurated and was being put into effect in the first century. These ideas are difficult because, manifestly, Israel was not restored, and the dissolution of the state was prophesied by John the Baptist and Jesus from the beginning of their ministry. This point is not as decisive as it might seem because it is argued that if the church is a restored Israel – the remnant – then the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity could be presented as a completion of the restoration of Israel in a new body – a New Israel. It is this doctrinal move that makes this issue an important and wide-ranging topic.

Wrapping

A lot is issues are wrapped up in this topic, for example,

  1. Did the early church expect an imminent return of Jesus and the subsequent establishment of the kingdom of God; in this case, was the restoration of Israel inaugurated with the ministry of John the Baptist and expected to come to completion in the soon return of Jesus?
  2. Did the early church consider itself to have been transferred to the kingdom and believe that it was in some sense present and realized in the church; in this case, did the church think of itself as the restoration of Israel?
  3. Why has there been a period of two thousand years since the birth of the church? Is the church today (Christendom) the continuing remnant of Israel? Why did the return of Jesus not take place during the apostles’ generation?
  4. Is there a future purpose for Israel? What is the relationship of the church today to Israel? How do both figure in the purpose of God?

These are difficult questions, but more so for those who do not follow a continuous-historic view of Revelation. Without such a reading, the last two thousand years are largely a blank page in the purpose of God. Having said this, even a continuous reading leaves the last two thousand years a blank page in respect of the vicissitudes of the Jewish Diaspora. Why have there been no Jewish prophets since the time of the early church?

Answering Questions

The answers to the above questions are partly hidden because there have been no prophets since the early church. However, there is precedent and pattern in God’s dealings with Israel and there is a prophetic program laid out in the OT. It is possible therefore to answer these questions from the standpoint of someone living in the first century – such a person would have no conception that there would be at least another 2000 years before the return of Christ.

The idea that the kingdom of God is “near” and that it is already in some sense a “present reality” among those who were “of Christ” is not without precedent. The idea that the kingdom has “begun” or been “inaugurated” – that it has started to be put into effect – this idea is represented in the eighth century prophets. It is no accident that NT writers appeal to Isaiah more than any other prophet. However, in Isaiah’s day the kingdom did not come to full realization. It began with the deliverance of Jerusalem; it was accompanied by a bestowal of the Spirit; many of the oracles in Isaiah 35, 40-66 paint the prospect of an imminent establishment of the kingdom under Hezekiah. However, it did not come about because of Hezekiah’s sin in the matter of the visit of the Babylonian envoys.[7]

The precedent should have tutored a first century Christian to expect postponement in the purpose of God even with the pleading with Israel that was being undertaken by the church. This pleading is illustrated throughout the book of Acts, which is where the prophetically recorded history ends.

What else might a first century Christian have expected? Jesus had prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem and John the Baptist had prophesied a coming wrath. Such prophecies preclude an easy path to the restoration of Israel and the fulfillment of the national aspirations of the Prophets. Isaiah had also prophesied a preaching of the good news to the Gentiles. This was being fulfilled by the apostles and evangelists. How would a first century Christian have reconciled preaching to the Gentiles with an expectation that Jerusalem and the temple were to be destroyed? The issue can be put in Isaianic terms:

The preaching to the nations is captured by the motif “light to the Gentiles” (Isa 42:6, 49:6, 61:9, 66:19, KJV), but this outreach is part of a complex situation in which the idolatry of the nations is opposed (Isa 43:9, 45:20); nations are regarded as of little consequence (Isa 40:15, 17); nations will be subdued (Isa 41:2, 60:12, 64:1); nations will witness the military prowess of God (Isa 52:10); nations will carry Israel home (Isa 49:22, 66:20);  nations will run to Israel and her light (Isa 55:5, 60:3, 5, 11, 66:18); judgment will be taken to the nations (Isa 42:1, 61:11, 62:2); Israel will expand into the territory of the nations (Isa 54:3); and Israel will receive tribute from the nations (Isa 60:16, 61:6, 66:12).

This is the prophetic context for the preaching of good news to the nations, and this poses the question: how did the first century Christian understand the fulfillment of Isaiah’s “light to the Gentiles” (Luke 2:32, Acts 13:47, 26:23) in the absence of a lack of fulfillment of other nationalistic prophecies.

The answer to this question lies in the Olivet prophecy insofar as that prophecy places the restoration of Israel after the destruction of Jerusalem and exile (Luke 21:24, 28). There is therefore in the NT scheme a central place for the destruction of Jerusalem and an exile, whereas in Isaiah, the preaching to the Gentiles is of a piece with the restoration of Judah.

In the latter half of Isaiah (40-66) the Gentile mission is part and parcel of the restoration of Judah, and Jerusalem is central to that restoration on several levels. In the NT, the mission to the Gentiles has been brought forward prior to a destruction of Jerusalem and with only the prospect of the restoration of Israel (Acts 3:19-21). This raises the question, why? Why was a restoration theme (the Gentile mission) juxtaposed and implemented alongside a theme of destruction and exile?

With Jesus’ prophecies of exile (“led away captive into all nations”, Luke 21:24), a first century Christian would naturally think of the Babylonian Exile as the historical model: what had happened then (and why) was now going to be repeated in his day. But there is a “coincidence” here that explains the Gentile mission.

Prior to the nation being led away captive into all nations, the good news was preached in “all nations” – ecclesias were located in the existing Diaspora and ready and waiting for the enlarged Diaspora after AD70: God placed the remnant of Israel in the places where Israel were going to be scattered.

This “coincidence” would tutor the first century Christian in his preaching after AD70 – to continue to preach the good news about restoration to Jews, but to expect this upon the return of Jesus.

Conclusion

This introductory essay is programmatic. It does not explain all of the reasons for the Gentile mission; it does not explore the explanation that the gospel was taken to the Gentiles in order to provoke the Jews to repentance; we have not emphasized the grace of God in widening the gospel to the Gentiles; and we have not shown how the redemption of God wrought in the death of Christ is the basis upon which deliverance is preached to all men. Our objective has been to introduce the topic of the restoration of Israel and argue that restoration is not inaugurated in the first century – rather the preaching to the Gentiles is brought forward to place the “righteous” where Israel were going to be exiled.

[1] N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK, 1992).

[2] M. Fuller, The Restoration of Israel, (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003). See also D. Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Both Fuller and Ravens are concerned with Luke-Acts.

[3] M. M. B. Turner, Power from on High: the Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).

[4] M. J. Scott, Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, & Christian Perspectives (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001).

[5] Wright, New Testament, 268.

[6] Fuller, Restoration, 24.

[7] We presume here an eighth century reading of Isaiah 40-66.