Last Modified:

Outline (yep, this post is so long, I’m giving you shortcuts!):

• Introduction
• Are There No Legitimate Israelites Left?
  • Defining “This Generation” in the Olivet & Great Temple Discourses
• Acts 1:1-11
• Where Did the Heavenly Destiny Idea Come From?
• Did the Holy Spirit Correct the Apostles’ Understanding in Acts 2?
• Malachi 4:4-6
• Other OT Passages
• Romans 11:1-32
  • The Passage Itself
  • The Romans 11:8 Triad
  • NT Quotations from Psalm 69
  • Every OT Prophecy Fulfilled by the 1st Century? No Such Thing As “Partially Fulfilled Prophecy”? Ezekiel 26 Has Entered the Chat.
  • Life Out From Among Dead Ones
  • The Olive Tree Parable
  • “When the fullness of the nations might enter”
  • Isaiah 59 & 27 LXX
  • Stubbornness and Compassion
  • Attempts to Explain Away this Passage
• The Commonwealth Of Israel, Bride of Christ, & Jerusalem Above
• Some Standing Here Will Not Taste Death…
• A Proof-Text For Preterism? (Hebrews 12:28)
• Would Sacrifices At A Future Temple Be Pointless?
• Individual Salvation Versus National Restoration
• Pragmatic Concerns Regarding a Future Temple

Introduction

I’m no stranger to the ways that some people try to explain away all the clear statements in Scripture prophesying that Israelites would return to the land and worship at a third temple sometime after the second destruction of Jerusalem. But on the night of February 14, 2024, one of the most absurd ones was brought to my attention: that there are no ethnic Israelites anymore, and that the Israelites we know today are actually descended from central Europeans with no ancestral connection to the ancient Israelites. In fact, the guy who tried to tell me this said “If you look at the Israelis of today, they look just like you and me [Caucasian].” Let’s just set aside the fact that this is the single most racist argument anyone has ever tried making to me to justify their understanding of what the Bible teaches (I have read about some worse ones that were popular in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries — like misinterpreting the incorrectly-named “Curse on Ham” (the curse was actually on Ham’s son, Canaan) to justify enslavement or mistreatment of African-Americans — but nobody’s ever been stupid and/or crazy enough to seriously espouse any of those ones in my presence!). That attempt at historical revisionism is something I can shut down relatively fast (in hindsight, I can tell you I’d fully researched and typed everything in this post related to that point — up until the paragraph beginning with “Among other things…” — only 24 HOURS after the first time someone made this claim to my face; it undoubtedly helped that I’d already been exposed to some of the relevant discoveries in molecular genetics a decade or so earlier!), so I’d also like to spend the rest of this post showcasing the Biblical passages that prophesy Israel returning to the land and having another physical tabernacle/temple (or two) and debunking the attempts amillennialists (preterist or otherwise) make at explaining them away.

Given that I didn’t actually publish this post until March 14, 2025, that does mean I’d been working on it on-and-off for 13 months before posting it here! Bear in mind that I will update this post as more such passages and counterarguments come to my attention; I want this post to be a one-stop shop for the Biblical data on this issue. So if you’ve heard of a passage or counterargument that isn’t covered here, please let me know in the comments! (Of course, I’ve already addressed a few other passages in other posts, like 1 Corinthians 15:50, the use of Joel 2:28-3:8 in Acts 2 & of Amos 9:11-15 in Acts 15, and Zechariah 6:12-13 & Jeremiah 22:28-30. So do your homework and read my explanations for those passages before offering them as counterarguments!)

Are There No Legitimate Israelites Left?

The Recent Origin of This Idea

The idea that Modern Israelites are descended from central European converts to Judaism and not Ancient Israelites was popularized by a theory put forth in 1976 by Arthur Koestler in his book “The Thirteenth Tribe”. Incidentally, this book has never gained mainstream acceptance in scholarly circles, whether scientific or historical in nature. Only conspiracy theorists, anti-Zionist groups, and (evidently) some amillennialists have embraced this idea (you can probably guess why each of those particular groups are fond of it). In fact, the scholarship behind it is so shoddy that even such anti-Biblical sources as Wikipedia and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have trashed it (however minimally, for the latter)!

The case for it may have been believable in the 1970s, but at that time, the field of genetics wasn’t yet developed enough to contribute to the discussion. (It’s significant that this article mentions that the men analyzed in the study discussed there claim to be descended from Levi. Perhaps they could serve as part of the priesthood for the third tabernacle/temple?) Genetics has made a lot of progress since then.

Molecular Genetics Results Show Modern Jews Are Definitely Descended From Ancient Jews

For most Ashkenazi Jews (the ones typically focused on for these arguments, since they spent centuries in Europe and account for the majority of Jews in the world today), analysis of mitochondrial DNA shows that their maternal ancestors are from southern Europe, but Y chromosome DNA analysis shows that their paternal ancestors are indeed from the Levant (i.e., including ancient Israel). The general understanding of this data is that when male Jews migrated to Europe after being banished from the Levant, they converted European women to Judaism and married them. It’s easy to see why those who promote the idea that ethnic Jews don’t live in Israel today focus so much on the mitochondrial DNA evidence, while totally ignoring the Y chromosome evidence!

At the same time, it’s easy to see why they’ve been able to get away with it to a large degree: in the 2^nd century {scroll to the last paragraph under “Mitochondrial DNA”, and read the full article for even more information on the genetic data!}, Jewish authorities changed their definition of “a Jew” from claiming that being Jewish followed the paternal line (as it did throughout Biblical history) to claiming that it followed the maternal line. So by the reckoning followed by most Orthodox Jews today, one isn’t an ethnic Jew unless their mother is. But according to the reckoning used in Biblical times (which is the one God would actually recognize), one was an ethnic Jew if their father was — just like it worked for virtually any other ethnicity in the ancient world! When God uses one definition to identify people, but the people themselves use another, guess which one’s right? As Paul said, “let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4b KJV).

Furthermore, the person who brought this issue to my attention claimed that “The only true Israelites today are those living in Persia who never returned to Israel after the Babylonian exile, and they want nothing to do with the Promised Land!” But check out what this peer-reviewed journal article concluded about sub-Saharan African DNA markers in eight Jewish groups around the world, including the Persian (Iranian) and Babylonian (Iraqi) ones:

A striking finding from our study is the consistent detection of 3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups we studied, Ashkenazis (from northern Europe), Sephardis (from Italy, Turkey and Greece), and Mizrahis (from Syria, Iran and Iraq). This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data, and although it can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE-like analyses of autosomal data, it was not highlighted in those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan African admixture. We estimate that the average date of the mixture of 72 generations (∼2,000 years assuming 29 years per generation) is older than that in Southern Europeans or other Levantines. The point estimates over all 8 populations are between 1,600–3,400 years ago, but with largely overlapping confidence intervals. It is intriguing that the Mizrahi Irani and Iraqi Jews—who are thought to descend at least in part from Jews who were exiled to Babylon about 2,600 years ago—share the signal of African admixture. (An important caveat is that there is significant heterogeneity in the dates of African mixture in various Jewish populations.) A parsimonious explanation for these observations is that they reflect a history in which many of the Jewish groups descend from a common ancestral population which was itself admixed with Africans, prior to the beginning of the Jewish diaspora that occurred in 8th to 6th century BC. The dates that emerge from our ROLLOFF analysis in the non-Mizrahi Jews could also reflect events in the Greek and Roman periods, when there were large communities of Jews in North Africa, particularly Alexandria. We detect a similar African mixture proportion in the non-Jewish Druze (4.4±0.4%) although the date is more recent (54±7 generations; 44±7 after the bias correction). Algorithms such as PCA and STRUCTURE show that various Jewish populations cluster with Druze, which coupled with the similarity in mixture proportions, is consistent with descent from a common ancestral population. Importantly, the other Levantine populations (Bedouins and Palestinians) do not share this similarity in the African mixture pattern with Jews and Druze, making them distinct in their admixture history. {Boldface mine.}

All Jewish groups have genetic signatures from sub-Saharan Africans (which would’ve been covered by more generic uses of the word “Ethiopian”, by the way) in their gene pools that were acquired before they were ever exiled! And right in line with that claim about Jews who stayed in Babylonia and Persia after the rest returned from exile, the greatest number of estimated generations since the genetic mixing with sub-Saharan Africans (i.e., the furthest back in history these genetic signatures stopped being introduced into a population) was among Iraqi Jews — the ones who stayed behind after the Babylonian exile, while other groups either moved to Persia (Iran) or went back to Israel, and so had subsequent opportunity to intermarry with sub-Saharan Africans! Here’s an adaptation of the relevant data from Table 2 of the study:

Population	West African ancestry proportion ± standard error	Estimated date of admixture after bias correction (generations ± standard error)
Ashkenazi Jews (different dataset)	2.8%±0.3%	n/a
Ashkenazi Jews	3.2%±0.4%	53±13
Syrian Jews	3.9%±0.5%	72±23
Iranian Jews	2.6%±0.6%	70±34
Iraqi Jews	3.8%±0.5%	115±22
Sephardic Greek Jews	4.8%±0.4%	62±8
Sephardic Turkey Jews	4.5%±0.4%	73±11
Italian Jews	4.9%±0.5%	73±19

This data coheres perfectly with the Biblical and traditional historical narratives concerning Jewish migrations and intermarriages ever since Israel came into existence with the birth of Jacob’s sons nearly 3,800 years ago! Speaking of which, it’s significant that Ephraim and Manasseh were sons of Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of the Ancient Egyptian city of On (Genesis 41:45,50-52); since the half-tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh constituted the largest tribe of Israel, intermarriage between tribes would’ve made it inevitable that Egyptian DNA would show up throughout the Israelite gene pool! Similarly, Numbers 12:1 mentions that Moses had married an Ethiopian (sub-Saharan) woman! This simple remark that Moses “had married an Ethiopian woman” (Numbers 12:1c KJV) over 3,400 years ago fits nicely with the high end of the point estimates mentioned above. Could the Jew(s) whose sub-Saharan DNA signatures trace back that far be descendants of Moses (who was himself a descendant of Levi, by the way)? At any rate, the mention of more than one marriage in the Bible between an Israelite man and an African woman opens up the possibility that such marriages continued happening afterward, explaining why the admixture didn’t stop for any of these groups until about the time of their first exiles.

More Fallacious Reasoning by Those Using This Idea for Eschatological Purposes

Among other things, the findings from modern genetics were important to lead off with because the guy who made the above outrageous claim to me used it as a premise against an argument I made to show that the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse was still future. The argument in question is this one presented in Appendix E of my upcoming book, regarding the phrase “this generation” in the Olivet and Great Temple Discourses (remember, Luke 21 was recording a different speech than Matthew 24-25 & Mark 13; I even pointed this out to the guy by directing his attention to the verse immediately following the speech in Luke: “And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.” – Luke 21:37 KJV, boldface added):

English translations easily give the impression that the term refers to all of Jesus’ contemporaries, since that’s the most common sense of the English word “generation”. But the truth is that the Greek word for “generation”, γενεά (genea, pronounced geh-neh-AH; Strong’s Number G1074), more often means “passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family… metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race“. So the phrase “this generation” more likely refers to a group of people of the same stock or having a common characteristic, and Jesus was saying people of that stock or with that characteristic will always be around “until all these things [mentioned in the Olivet Discourse] take place.” (Matthew 24:34c, Mark 13:30c NASB) Moreover, while Matthew & Luke record Jesus’ (probably Aramaic) word for “until” with the phrase ἕως ἂν (properly, “till whenever”), Mark uses μέχρις, which emphasizes a point in time when something stops being the case (as opposed to the period beforehand when it still is the case; I already discussed the word μέχρι on pages 742-743 in Appendix D). This word choice on Mark’s part forces us to conclude that this category of people will “pass away” the moment the very last of “all these things” occurs.
{HIDMF p. 810-811. Italics and boldface in original.}

After seven pages of going over all other Scriptural uses of the phrase “this generation” (and related phrases Jesus used involving the term genea), I reach the following conclusion:

The evidence that the earliest Christians (who, before the Gospel was brought to the Samaritans in Acts 8, were all Jews who were intimately familiar with all the OT passages quoted above — Samaritans accepted the books of Moses, but rejected the rest of the OT; so they would’ve accepted the passages from Genesis & Deuteronomy quoted above, but rejected all the other OT quotes), starting with the Apostles, would’ve understood the phrase “this generation” in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, & Luke 21:32 to mean wicked Israelites, those who reject God’s word (a set of people that still has living members to this day, implying that at least some of the events described in the Olivet Discourse and the Great Temple Discourse must still be future) is overwhelming! (And I didn’t even get into the contrast between “the children of God” and “the children of the devil” in 1 John 3:10 NIV.) If you disagree with this interpretation, you have the burden of proof to make a more robust case for your position than the case I’ve presented here.
{HIDMF p. 817. Italics, boldface, and underlining in original.}

The guy I made this point to orally replied: “But again, that assumes there were still Israelites after the destruction of Jerusalem; there aren’t!” However, aside from the fact that we just saw there are, the first quote above from my book (ending with “the moment the very last of “all these things” occurs.”) wasn’t the entire paragraph it’s quoted from. The rest of the paragraph goes as follows:

Since there were obviously contemporaries of Jesus who were still alive after the second destruction of Jerusalem, such as the Apostle John (even if you define “this generation” as Jews who were from Jerusalem and/or rejected Jesus and/or lived to witness Jerusalem’s destruction, Flavius Josephus fits all of these criteria and continued living for roughly 30 years after Jerusalem’s destruction; he even records that the Romans spared many captives from the siege and destruction who “were in their flourishing age” — which would’ve included people who were teenagers or children when Jesus was crucified, and fit all of the same criteria as Josephus himself), the phrase “this generation” obviously can’t have any of the definitions posed in this sentence (even within a Preterist framework).
{HIDMF p. 811. Italics and boldface in original.}

Does he think that Josephus was no longer an Israelite after Jerusalem’s second destruction?! Apparently, because I tried to gain insight into his thought process by asking how he defines “an Israelite”, and he said “A descendant of Abraham who remains faithful to the Mosaic Law — something that’s impossible to do as long as there’s no temple or priesthood.” You see the problem with this definition, right? It commits the “No True Scotsman” fallacy: where you define at least one key term in a biased way in order to protect your argument from rebuttals. He’s claiming that faithfully keeping the Mosaic Law is part and parcel of being a “true” Israelite; but by that definition, there can be no such thing as an “unfaithful Israelite”! Also, if his definition is correct, then were the Exilic Jews not Israelites for the period of time between the destruction of the first temple by Nebuchadnezzar and the beginning of the second temple’s construction? Quite simply, this is a loaded definition that’s contradicted by the numerous passages I cover in the pages between those last two quotes (and the many other passages throughout the Bible that don’t refer to them with phrases like “this generation”, “an evil generation”, “this adulterous and sinful generation”, etc.) that refer to unfaithful Israelites, without denying that they’re still Israelites! Sure, there are several Mosaic passages that refer to being “cut off from among the people”, but being “cut off” was a temporary thing that was only meant to last until the one being “cut off” was restored to right standing with God (note that many Mosaic occurrences of the phrase are in the context of laws we’d recognize today as having benefits for hygiene and/or public health); the New Testament equivalent to this is church discipline (Matthew 18:15-20; compare the situation discussed in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 with Paul’s response to the sinner’s subsequent repentance in 2 Corinthians 2:5-8).

Now that we’ve established that most Modern Israelites are indeed descended from the Israelites referred to in the Bible, all Biblical interpretations (of the whole thing, or select passages of it) that assume they’ve all died out can be dismissed for relying on a false premise. So having established that Israelites — by Biblical reckoning — do exist today, it’s time to address what the Bible says about their destiny. We’ll see that, when the grammatical-historical (i.e., straightforward) hermeneutic is used for Biblical exegesis (rather than imposing outside definitions to force-fit key phrases and passages to one’s pet doctrines; i.e., eisegesis), plenty of Biblical statements show that Israelites were prophesied to return to the land of Israel, worship at another physical temple, and/or be restored as an independent kingdom on Earth being ruled by the Messiah sometime after being banished by the Romans.

Acts 1:1-11

A good place to begin is at the start of the book of Acts.

The former account, indeed, I made concerning all things, O Theophilus, that Jesus began both to do and to teach, till the day in which, having given command, through the Holy Spirit, to the apostles whom he did choose out, he was taken up, to whom also he did present himself alive after his suffering, in many certain proofs, through forty days being seen by them, and speaking the things concerning the reign [or “Kingdom”] of God.

And being assembled together with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ‘Ye did hear of me; because John, indeed, baptized with water, and ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit — after not many days.’ They, therefore, indeed, having come together, were questioning him, saying, ‘Lord, dost thou at this time restore the reign [or “kingdom”] to Israel?’ and he said unto them, ‘It is not yours [literally, “not from you”] to know times or seasons that the Father did appoint in His own authority; but ye shall receive power at the coming of the Holy Spirit upon you, and ye shall be witnesses to me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the end of the earth.’

And these things having said — they beholding — he was taken up, and a cloud did receive him up from their sight; and as they were looking stedfastly to the heaven in his going on, then, lo, two men stood [literally, “two men had stood”] by them in white apparel, who also said, ‘Men, Galileans, why do ye stand gazing into the heaven? this Jesus who was received up from you into the heaven, shall so come in what manner ye saw him going on to the heaven.‘ (Acts 1:1-11 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

First off, a major theme of this passage is the 11 remaining disciples (after Judas Iscariot’s suicide) being eyewitnesses to not only Jesus’ teachings and his status as resurrected, but also his ascension. The last point is important because it allowed the disciples to bear eyewitness testimony to the starting point of the fulfillment of the most-quoted Old Testament prophecy in the entire New Testament (including showing up in Peter’s first sermon, in Acts 2:32-35): “The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make [literally, “put”] Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” (Psalm 110:1 NASB) The fact that the Apostles quoted this OT passage more than any other shows just how important it was for them to drive it home! That’s especially significant when you consider that this verse clearly places Jesus’ enemies being made “a footstool for [his] feet” at a time still future from the completion of the New Testament (per the mentions of Jesus/the lamb being on the Father’s throne beside Him in Revelation 3:21, 5:6, 12:5, & 19:5 [note that the voice in the last passage comes from God’s throne and refers to “our God” – “our” is first-person plural, but “God” is being referred to in third-person; hence, the voice must be that of Jesus]).

Amillennialists would almost certainly counter: “well, that’s referring to when the subjugation process will be finished; it’s already started”. However, the Hebrew text counters this idea very explicitly. If that idea is what was intended, the verb for “I put” (שִׁית; H7896), would be conjugated as שַׁתִּי, making it Qal Perfect Masculine Common Singular: “I have put” (e.g., Psalm 73:28). Instead, Psalm 110:1 has אָשִׁית, which is Qal Imperfect Masculine Common Singular: “I am putting/I will put”. This goes back to what is essentially (or at least should be) “Hebrew Verb Tenses 101”: The Perfect tense indicates an action that has been completed; the Imperfect tense indicates an action that isn’t yet complete. Strictly speaking, Hebrew verb tenses focus on what stage of the process an action is in, with context dictating whether the time perspective is past, present, or future. So, for instance, a perfect-tense verb can be used for a future action (e.g., “I will have gone tomorrow”), and an imperfect-tense verb can be used for a past action (e.g., “I was walking home, when…”). One contextual detail that can decide whether it’s past or future is if the verb is used with a preposition or conjunction pertaining to timing; such a word is indeed used in Psalm 110:1, namely “until” (עַד; H5704). With H7896 in the imperfect tense (as it is in the Masoretic Text), the phrase עַד־אָשִׁית would properly mean “until I am in the process of putting” – that is, Jesus is to sit at His Father’s right side until the process is underway (i.e., begins)! By the same token, if the amillennialists are correct that God has already started the process of putting Jesus’ enemies under his feet, David could’ve been inspired to indicate that by making the verb perfect-tense in the same phrase: עַד־שַׁתִּי, properly meaning “until I have finished putting”. The fact that amillennialists have so consistently ignored this oft-repeated teaching of David and the Apostles for so many centuries ought to be considered a scandal, if you ask me.

Second, note that Luke emphasized that Jesus had chosen the Apostles himself (which is reinforced by the fact that the Greek word for “Apostle”, ἀπόστολος, G652, literally means “emissary”), appeared to them for 40 days after his resurrection, and spent that time not only proving he really was resurrected, but also teaching them “the things concerning the Kingdom of God”. After all that, Luke tells us that they “were questioning” Jesus about when he’d restore the kingdom to Israel. The verb for “were questioning” is in the imperfect tense, indicating that they’d already been asking this for an extended period of time. This referred not only to the 40 days leading up to the events of verses 7-11, but all the way back to the first time they asked him about this, prompting him to give the Olivet Discourse: “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3c NASB, boldface and underlining added) The word for “coming” in this question is the first NT occurrence (even chronologically; Matthew’s Gospel was written after several of the other occurrences in the NT, but the conversation Matthew recorded here was spoken before all of those other occurrences) of the Greek word παρουσία (parousia, G3952), which originally meant (in the earlier secular Greek literature that would’ve been the disciples’ only source for understanding how to use it – this word never appears in the Septuagint) a visit from a ruler, complete with pomp, celebration, and addressing of requests and/or grievances (per the TDNT); most subsequent NT uses of this word also refer to Jesus’ parousia, in which case they’d have the same connotations as the instance in Matthew 24:3. The use of this word in this question indicates that those asking it (the 12 original disciples) were asking about when Jesus would show up as King.

This tells us that from before the first time up through the last time they asked Jesus about the arrival of his Kingdom (from 3 nights before his crucifixion to 40 days after his resurrection), they consistently retained the same interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies about the Kingdom that Israelites in general had accepted for centuries prior: that Israel would be restored, not only to a self-ruling nation on Earth, but with the Messiah as their King for the rest of eternity. So if amillennialists are correct that this understanding is totally wrong, then either Jesus was an incredibly lousy teacher, or his disciples were incredibly lousy students (which would also imply that Jesus was incredibly idiotic to trust them as his emissaries)! Either way, amillennialists are implicitly blaspheming (slandering) Jesus with their handling of this passage — something they should be thankful Jesus explicitly said was forgiveable (Matthew 12:32, Luke 12:10). As for the “on Earth” part, Jesus himself reinforced this from the very beginning of the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.… Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matthew 5:3,5 KJV, boldface added) How can both of these promises come true unless “the kingdom of heaven” will be on “the earth”?!

Finally, how did Jesus respond to this question? “It is not from you to know times or seasons that the Father did appoint in His own authority”. In contrast to how amillennialists try to frame this passage, the phrase in the Apostles’ question that Jesus’ response addressed wasn’t “to Israel”, but “at this time”. Nothing in his response indicated that the Apostles misunderstood the nature of the Kingdom of God (after all, how can they after Jesus had just spent 40 days incessantly talking about it?!), or that they were mistaken that the kingdom would be restored to Israel; rather, the only thing that Jesus indicated they failed to understand (and in fact, weren’t meant to understand) was the date of the Kingdom’s arrival. The phrasing of Jesus’ response indicates that this also goes for Christians who would be taught within the Apostles’ lifetimes. We can gather this from the fact that the word for “you” is in the genitive case (“from you”), rather than the dative case (“for you”), as most English versions translate it; the sense of the sentence with “you” in the genitive case would be that the “times or seasons that the Father did appoint in His own authority” weren’t meant to be learned from the Apostles; that is, learning and teaching those dates wasn’t a part of their ministry. But that wouldn’t remain the case all the way until the Kingdom’s arrival: Paul said in his penultimate letter (more specifically, in 1 Timothy 6:13-16) that God would privately disclose (all other NT occurrences of this word are used in contexts where something is “shown” to a select person or group of people, so why should the instance in 1 Timothy 6:15 be the exception?) the date of Jesus’ return (something that can be disclosed privately, in contrast to the return itself, which “every eye will see” — Revelation 1:7b) “in His own times” (1 Timothy 6:15b YLT) {HIDMF p. 753-754}. Quite simply, the point that the Apostles still didn’t understand after all of Jesus’ personal instruction to them regarding the Kingdom of God wasn’t if Israel would be restored to an independent nation ruled by the Messiah forevermore, but when.

Also note that verse 11 tells us that Jesus will return in a physical body, just as he left in one (contradicting the idea that a “glorified body”, whether of Jesus or a redeemed person, won’t be physical). This shows that claims about Christians (and for that matter, the rest of the redeemed throughout history) inheriting an immaterial eternity are simply Gnostic false teachings (see 1 John 4:1-3 for an especially powerful condemnation of the idea of Jesus’ current body — and by implication, the resurrection bodies of the faithful, per Philippians 3:20-21 — not being made of physical flesh).

Where Did the Heavenly Destiny Idea Come From? Not the Bible!

You see, it’s important to understand that, historically, most Christians who’ve objected to a future restoration of Israel have done so under the presumption that our eternal inheritance won’t be a physical one (including physical land). For example, Bob Pulliam claimed that “No passages implying a future kingdom even hint at that kingdom being on earth.” {“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 108.} We just saw that Matthew 5:3,5 is a direct counterexample to this claim (as is Hebrews 2:5, where the Greek phrasing for “the world to come” literally refers to “the inhabited land, the coming one”). But in fact, I can flip this statement around with much greater validity: No passages talking about our eternal destiny (or anything else, for that matter) state or even imply that Christians will go to heaven!

I know most Christians will find that claim astonishing, but the fact is that every time people point to some Biblical passage(s) that they think show(s) otherwise, they’re making at least one of three basic mistakes:

1. They read more into the text than is warranted (e.g., They cite passages about Jesus’ return to Earth, and merely assume a return trip to heaven afterward; or cite passages talking about our treasures in heaven, and merely assume we’ll be going there to get them, instead of Jesus bringing them here, as clearly stated in Revelation 22:12; or they cite Philippians 3:20-21 and merely assume “citizenship” refers to location, when it actually refers to rights and privileges granted by the dominion one is “citizen” of, as seen in Acts 22:25-29.)
2. They overlook key prepositions (e.g., They cite “For indeed, in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven,” — 2 Corinthians 5:2 NASB — overlooking the fact that the dwelling is said to be “from” heaven, not “in” heaven; this verse is talking about a believer’s resurrection body, as a margin note in the 2020 NASB acknowledges.)
3. They otherwise neglect to check the Greek phrasing (e.g., Quoting “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,” — Titus 2:13 NASB — as if “the blessed hope” refers to a heavenly destiny; this ignores the fact that Sharp’s 1^st Rule shows that “the blessed hope” is the “appearing” of Jesus at his return, not heaven — in the Greek text, “appearing” doesn’t have a definite article, so “the blessed hope and appearing” is being portrayed as a unit. Another example is the citation of 2 Peter 3:10-12 as saying the “elements” will be melted to annihilate the physical creation, leaving heaven and hell as the only places remaining; all other NT occurrences of the word for “elements” — Galatians 4:3,9 & Colossians 2:8,20 — show that it actually refers to the foundational components of human civilization, which are abstract entities, not physical ones.)

See pages 15-19 of this PDF to get a better feel for how these mistakes are made with various passages.

How, then, has the “heavenly destiny” idea become so engrained in Christendom since the NT was written? The answer can be summarized in two words: “Gnosticism” and “Antisemitism” (but predominantly the former). Note that I’m here using the term “Gnosticism” in the looser sense of “syncretism between Christianity and pagan Greek philosophical ideas”. The fact is that every church father taught that OT prophecies regarding the Kingdom would be fulfilled literally (just like the Israelites did for centuries beforehand and as Orthodox Jews still do today), and in fact condemned those who taught against resurrection of the material body and that Christians go to heaven, even if just during death {e.g., see Justin Martyr. “Dialogue with Trypho”. Chapter 80.}–until circa A.D. 200, when Clement of Alexandria entered the fray. Clement of Alexandria was interested in making Christianity not just respectable, but palatable to pagan Greek intelligentsia, most of whom were enthralled by allegorical interpretation methods. So in his multi-volume work “Stromata”, he accepts a premise that was foreign to the Bible, but that his academic Greek audience took for granted: the status of Greek philosophy (especially Platonism) as an ultimate authority.

Accordingly, before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration. For your foot, it is said, will not stumble, if you refer what is good, whether belonging to the Greeks or to us, to Providence. Proverbs 3:23 [however, note that the portion of this quote that actually was taken from Proverbs 3 actually ends with the word “stumble”] For God is the cause of all good things; but of some primarily, as of the Old and the New Testament; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring the Hellenic mind, as the law, the Hebrews, to Christ. Galatians 3:24 Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.

{Clement of Alexandria. “Stromata”. Book 1, Chapter 5. Italics and verse citations by Knight. Boldface and content in brackets mine.}

Among the pagan Greek ideas (espoused by Plato, among others) that Clement syncretized with Christianity in his efforts was the “heavenly destiny” concept, including an immaterial existence for the rest of eternity.

For there are with the Lord both rewards and many mansions, corresponding to men’s lives. Whosoever shall receive, says He, a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward; and whosoever shall receive a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward; and whoever shall receive one of the least of these my disciples, shall not lose his reward. Matthew 10:41-42 And again, the differences of virtue according to merit, and the noble rewards, He indicated by the hours unequal in number; and in addition, by the equal reward given to each of the labourers — that is, salvation, which is meant by the penny — He indicated the equality of justice; and the difference of those called He intimated, by those who worked for unequal portions of time. They shall work, therefore, in accordance with the appropriate mansions of which they have been deemed worthy as rewards, being fellow-workers in the ineffable administration and service. Those, then, says Plato, who seem called to a holy life, are those who, freed and released from those earthly localities as from prisons, have reached the pure dwelling-place on high. In clearer terms again he expresses the same thing: Those who by philosophy have been sufficiently purged from those things, live without bodies entirely for all time. Although they are enveloped in certain shapes; in the case of some, of air, and others, of fire. He adds further: And they reach abodes fairer than those [i.e., ascend the heavenly spheres], which it is not easy, nor is there sufficient time now to describe. Whence with reason, blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted; Matthew 5:4 for they who have repented of their former evil life shall attain to the calling (κλῆσιν), for this is the meaning of being comforted (παρακληθῆναι).

{Clement of Alexandria. “Stromata”. Book 4, Chapter 6. Scroll to about 2/3 of the way through the 2^nd paragraph. Italics, verse citations, and contents in parentheses by Knight. Boldface, underlining, and content in brackets mine.}

Note well Plato’s contention that those who live a holy life are “freed and released from those earthly localities as from prisons”; Plato (among other ancient Greek philosophers) taught that matter was inherently evil, in which case “true” salvation would involve an escape from the material universe. This is why the Biblical teaching of bodily resurrection of the dead was such a huge pill for Greek converts to Christianity to swallow (Acts 17:32), and why Clement was willing to redefine the believer’s eternal destiny for his Greek academic audience in a way that avoids that notion–to the pagan Greek mindset, being resurrected to live in a material body for the rest of eternity sounded like the ultimate hell!

After Clement, his pupil and successor, Origen, furthered the cause of interpreting the Bible through a Platonic lens. And once the Roman emperor Constantine established the Roman Catholic Church in A.D. 325 and needed to determine which view of eternity would be the State Religion’s official view, he sided with Clement & Origen against all the apologists and martyrs who came before them; he went on to brand anyone who disagreed a “heretic” and “schismatic”, all but shutting down debate on this question for centuries to come. This is all documented here. And that’s before we even get into Augustine of Hippo a century later, whose mystical interpretive methods became Christendom’s “gold standard” for centuries. In light of all these facts about how history has played out, it’s no wonder most people today (Christian or otherwise) merely assume that the Bible itself teaches these things somewhere in its pages!

It’s worth adding that the late second century was a time when Christendom at large had started becoming more anti-Semitic (just like the Gentile nations that the bulk of its converts were members of) and reinterpreting Biblical passages in attempts to justify that antisemitism. Some of that reinterpretation led to allegorizing away all the OT passages I’m discussing in this post that teach Israel’s restoration when taken at face value–I suspect all the centuries of these allegorizations being the only interpretations given a fair hearing (see previous paragraph) is why even those in congregations that grew out of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement (e.g., Church of Christ ministers) are mostly unwilling to apply the Berean spirit (Acts 17:11) to this sacred cow. And I suspect all this reinforced the divide that arose between Christianity and its Jewish roots in the early centuries after the Apostles, and (dare I say) may have even been part of the mechanism God used to keep most ethnic Israelites calloused to the Good Message (see the discussion on Romans 11 below) for all these centuries. Think about it: what crueler way to demoralize late-2nd-century ethnic Israelites (whose immediate parents or grandparents were altogether banished from Judea only decades prior and were desperately looking forward to God restoring their nation) and make them resistant to Christianity (especially as Christianity started being imposed on the societies they migrated to, thanks to the influence of the Roman Catholic Church) than to convince everyone around them that their hope for eternity, rooted in their own Scriptures, is actually a false hope?

Did the Holy Spirit Correct the Apostles’ Understanding in Acts 2?

In response to the observation that Jesus didn’t correct the Apostles’ understanding of the Kingdom’s nature in Acts 1, it is often claimed that the Apostles’ understanding on this point was corrected by the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. Hence, when Peter supposedly said that the prophecy of Joel 2 was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost (as that guy discussed earlier admitted in a later sermon — paraphrased — “None of those people standing there that day had probably ever thought of understanding Joel 2 in this way, until Peter told them at Pentecost, ‘this is what Joel was talking about’”), Peter supposedly acquired this understanding through the Holy Spirit right before giving his sermon.

But aside from the points brought to bear in that blog post I just linked to, this doesn’t actually solve the problem at all; in fact, it creates an insurmountable historical problem! The reason is that Peter’s audience would’ve still had the “old” understanding of Joel 2:28-32a based on its OT context {I’ll link to an exposition based on the fuller context of Joel once that post is ready}. After all, Peter himself made it clear in Acts 2:38 (after he’d already given this sermon) that his audience wouldn’t receive the Holy Spirit until they got baptized! So even if, for the sake of argument, Peter could understand the “real” meaning of Joel’s prophecy thanks to the Holy Spirit, his audience couldn’t have, because they didn’t have the Holy Spirit at the time they heard it! Instead, they would’ve totally rejected Peter’s message on the grounds that he was taking Joel’s prophecy out of context! So if, in reality, Jesus had left it to the Holy Spirit to “correct” his followers’ understanding of the Kingdom on the day of Pentecost, then the Apostles would’ve effectively “had an end-term abortion” with their own movement–killing Christianity as it was being born!

The same goes for all the other OT prophecies Peter quoted throughout his first sermon: there is simply no way that these Jews could’ve had their hearts pricked by Peter’s message (as verse 37 tells us they did) unless Peter was quoting all these OT prophecies in a manner that was consistent with the understanding Jews had already had of these passages for centuries. So even by the end of Pentecost A.D. 30, the Apostles, their 108 pre-Pentecost converts, and Peter’s Israelite listeners (both the 3,000 who got baptized that day and the millions who didn’t!) still believed (as noted above) that Israel would be restored, not only to a self-ruling nation on Earth, but with the Messiah as their King for the rest of eternity (remember, Peter quoted Psalm 110:1 during this same sermon!); the only detail in that boldfaced phrase where any of the people present for Peter’s first sermon disagreed at the end of Pentecost of A.D. 30 was whether the Messiah who’d rule them was Jesus of Nazareth, or someone else.

The Last 3 Verses of Malachi

Befittingly, the book of Malachi (and by implication, the Twelve Minor Prophets, which constitute a single scroll in Hebrew manuscripts) ends with a reminder to Israel to remember the Law of Moses in anticipation of Elijah returning before the Day of the Lord (bear in mind that the solitary letter פ appears at the end of Malachi 4:3 in the Masoretic Text — 3:21 by the Hebrew numbering — indicating that verse 3 closes out a major train of thought; this implies that the final 3 verses of Malachi constitute a major train of thought on their own):

Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for [literally, “upon”] all Israel, even statutes and ordinances. 5 Behold, I will send [literally, “Behold Me sending”] you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come [literally, “before the coming Day of YHWH, the great and the astonishing”]. 6 And [literally, “And so”] he shall turn the heart of the fathers to [literally, “upon”] the children, and the heart of the children to [literally, “upon”] their fathers; lest I come and [literally, “and then”; waw-consecutive] smite the earth [or “land”] with a curse [or “with utter destruction”; LXX “utterly”]. (Malachi 4:4-6 ASV)

Of course, many Christians have understood this to mean that Elijah will be one of the two witnesses of Revelation 11 — as do I. But some (such as the guy who brought up the idea discussed at the beginning of this post) have tried to counter “That passage was fulfilled in John the Baptist.” Their proof-text is as follows: “But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” (Matthew 17:12-13 KJV, boldface added) However, the verses immediately beforehand show that Jesus was linking John the Baptist to Malachi 4 in a different way. Bear in mind that this conversation immediately followed what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration, which Luke 9:9,28-36 shows occurred after John the Baptist had already been beheaded (recall that Luke’s Gospel is the only one that explicitly says it presents the events in chronological order — Luke 1:3).

And as they are coming down [literally, “And they coming down”] from the mount, Jesus charged them, saying, ‘Say to no one [literally, “To no one may you speak”] the vision, till the Son of Man out of the dead may rise.’
And his disciples questioned him, saying, ‘Why then do the scribes say that Elijah it behoveth to come first?‘
And Jesus answering said to them, ‘Elijah doth indeed come first, and shall restore all things, and I say to you — Elijah did already come, and they did not know him, but did with him whatever they would, so also the Son of Man is about to suffer by them.’ Then understood the disciples that concerning John the Baptist he spake to them. (Matthew 17:10-13 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

Jesus made a future-tense statement about Malachi 4:5, and followed it up with a past-tense statement about John the Baptist; this shows that he was referring to future events as well as past ones. In short, Jesus was saying that John the Baptist’s already-completed ministry was a type of the ministry Elijah would have “before the coming Day of the Lord”, a ministry which itself was still future from when Jesus said this. So no, John the Baptist didn’t fulfill Malachi 4:5-6.

Other OT Passages

I plan on covering Isaiah 9:4-7; 11:1-16, 32:1-20, 35:1-10, 60:1-22; Jeremiah 33:1-26; Ezekiel 37:1-28; & Zechariah 14:6-21 in a future blog post dedicated to Lesson 15 of “In the Days of Those Kings”, where Bob Pulliam gives his understanding of these passages in an effort to refute how Dispensationalists use these passages to show a still-future Kingdom of Christ on Earth. Sorry to make you wait, but I will link it here once it’s available.

On the other hand, I find it particularly telling that at no point in his entire book does Pulliam tell us how he interprets Isaiah 65-66 or Ezekiel 40-48. I’m confident that this is because he knows any attempt at allegorizing away these passages is a lost cause, and so would rather avoid bringing them to his readers’ attention (also note that his book is meant for use in Bible Study classes — it’s understandable that he, as a teacher, wouldn’t want to embarrass himself by floundering about trying to give a coherent exegesis of these passages if a student asks about them!). If anyone wants to try offering an allegorical interpretation for these passages, I challenge them to take what Tim Warner did for the story of the Rich Man & Lazarus, and do the same thing with these chapters: explain the allegorical significance of every last detail. Unless and until someone does this, I see no reason to entertain the idea that they weren’t meant to be fulfilled literally, because I’d have no viable alternative interpretation to consider.

Romans 11:1-32

This passage is the fullest exposition in the entire Bible about the destiny of national Israel and native Israelites as compared to Gentile nations and individuals, so I’ll go out of my way to ensure the passage is rendered as precisely as possible. And then, in light of the fact that Romans is second only to Hebrews in terms of how often the Rabbinical Teaching Style is employed within a New Testament epistle, we’ll consider the contexts of all the OT quotes used in this passage, to more fully understand what Paul was bringing to bear on the discussion. This is the single longest section of this entire post, so I’ve split it into sub-headers to help you find good stopping points.

First, the Passage Itself

1 I am saying therefore, whether possibly {scroll to entry III.2. under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”} God thrusted away the people group of His. Far be it! {μὴ γένοιτο; scroll to entry I.6.f. under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”} For I also, an Israelite, am out from seed of Abraham, out from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God thrusted away not [absolute negation, not conditional; note that the object of the verb “thrusted away” is a singular group rather than a plural of individuals, consistent with the unconditionality being meant on the collective level, not the individual level] the people group of His which He knew previously [misleadingly rendered “foreknew”, “chose from the beginning”, “chose before they were born”, etc. in most English translations, giving cover to Calvinistic predestination; “the people group of His which He knew previously” actually refers to the nation of Israel, which God had known personally before Paul’s time]. Or have you not perceived in Elijah what the Scripture says? How he entreats God against Israel [TR adds “, saying”; NA28 omits it]: 3 “Lord, the prophets of Yours they killed, [TR adds “and”; NA28 omits it] the altars of Yours they destroyed [literally, “they undermined”], and I’ve been left behind alone and they seek the life of mine.” 4 But what does He say to him? The divine response: “I left to Myself seven thousand men, any who bowed not a knee to Baal.” [agreeing with the MT of 1 Kings 19:18, albeit with “to Myself” instead of “in Israel”; the LXX has “you will leave” instead of “I left”] 5 In this manner, therefore, also in the present appointed time {scroll to entry 2.a. under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”}, a remnant on account of {scroll to entry II.3.c.γ under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”} election of grace there has been. 6 (But if in grace, then no longer is it from works; otherwise the grace no longer is grace. [NA28 ends the verse here. TR adds: “But if from works, no longer is it grace; otherwise the work no longer is work.”])
7 What therefore am I saying? What Israel seeks, that [following NA28; TR has “seeks of that,”] it encountered not. But the election encountered it, and the remaining ones were calloused, 8 just as it has been written, “God gave to them a breath of stupor [the Greek word refers to the sensation caused by a limb falling asleep], eyes of that not [particle of qualified negation, not absolute negation] to see, and ears of that not [qualified negation, not absolute] to hear, till the ‘today’ day.”
9 And David says “Let the table of theirs be made unto a snare, and unto a hunt, and unto a trap-trigger [G4625, usually rendered “stumbling block”; if you remember an old cartoon of one character trying to catch another in a box held up by a stick with a string attached for the former character to pull, this Greek word would properly refer to the stick], and unto a payback for them. 10 Let the eyes of theirs be made dark, not seeing {scroll to entry “II.6.b.δ” under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon” for an explanation of the linguistic construction used here, bearing in mind what a “pleonasm” is}, and the back [singular] of theirs [plural] You should bend together {scroll to entry “II.” under “Outline of Biblical Usage” for an explanation of this figure of speech} constantly.” [Quoting Psalm 69:22-23 LXX, 68:23-24 by the LXX verse numbering; note that the Masoretic Text substantially differs for the second half of each verse]
11 I am saying therefore, whether possibly {same situation in verse 1} they [the “calloused” portion of Israel mentioned back in verse 7 and described with OT prophecy in verses 8-10] tripped so that they may fall. Far be it! {same phrase in verse 1, μὴ γένοιτο} But through the lapse [literally, “side-slip”] of theirs, the deliverance comes to the nations [or “Gentiles”], unto the provocation {click here and scroll to entry II.6.a. under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”} of them {“of theirs” and “them” are both plural masculine, but “to the nations” is plural neuter; also notice that “the deliverance (or “salvation”)” is nominative and “them” is accusative, meaning “the deliverance” (not the Gentiles themselves) is what’s provoking “them” to jealousy}. 12 Now, if the lapse of them is abundance of the world order, and the decrease of them abundance of the nations, how much more the completion [or “fulfillment”] of them? [Note that all 3 instances of “of them” in this verse are the exact same word, αὐτῶν; hence, all three instances of “them” must be referring to the “calloused” portion of Israel discussed in verses 7-11)]
13 But [following NA28; TR has “For”] to you I am speaking, to the nations, inasmuch as {ἐφ᾽ ὅσον; scroll to entry C.I.2.d. under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”} truly [NA28 adds “therefore” here; TR omits it] I am of nations an emissary [i.e., apostle]; the ministry of mine I glorify, 14 if somehow I might provoke those of the flesh of mine [i.e., fellow Israelites] and I might save some out from among them. 15 For if the throwing away of them is reconciliation [the Greek word was properly used of money-changers exchanging equivalent values; consider the modern phrase “budget reconciliation”] of the world order, what is the admission of them, if not [conditional negation] life out from among dead ones?
16 Yet if the firstfruit is holy, also the dough; And if the root is holy, also the branches. 17 Moreover, if some of the branches were broken off, but you [singular], being a wild olive, were grafted in with them, and of the root and of the oiliness [following TR; NA28 has “and of the root of the oiliness”; olives were a major source of oil in both Israel and Rome] of the olive tree you [singular] became co-partaker [an adjective, not a noun or verb], 18 think not of {see the opening sentence under Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, explaining the technical difference between μή & οὐ} flaunting yourself [imperative] as if you’re of the branches. Yet if you flaunt yourself–you don’t [absolute negation] carry the root; rather, the root carries you [singular]!
19 You [singular] will utter, therefore, “Branches [following NA28; TR has “The branches”] were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Rightly! For disbelief they were broken off. Yet you [singular], in belief, have stood. Be not high minded [imperative], but fear [imperative]: 21 for if God spared not [absolute negation] of the branches according to nature, fear lest perhaps He may spare not even of you [following TR, with “spare” being aorist subjunctive, implying a mere possibility; NA28 has “nature, neither will He spare of you”, with “spare” being future indicative, implying a guarantee; “you” is singular in both manuscript bases]! 22 Behold [imperative] therefore integrity and sharpness of God. Indeed upon the ones who fell, sharpness; but upon you [singular], integrity [NA28 adds “of God” here; TR omits it], provided you are staying [2^nd-person present subjunctive, following NA28; TR has “provided he may stay” (3^rd-person aorist subjunctive)] in the integrity; otherwise {scroll to entry 2 under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”}, you [singular] also will be cut off. 23 Yet they likewise [following NA28, which has a single compound word meaning “likewise they”; TR has “they also” as two distinct words], provided they are staying [plural present subjunctive, following NA28; TR has “provided they may stay” (plural aorist subjunctive)] not [conditional negation] in the disbelief, will be grafted in. For capable is God to graft them in again. 24 For if you [singular] out from the wild olive according to nature were cut out, and in opposition to nature were grafted in unto a domesticated olive, how much more [πόσῳ μᾶλλον; same phrase from verse 12] these, the ones according to nature, will be grafted into the olive, into their own?
25 For I am wishing not [absolute negation] for you to be ignorant [present infinitive] brothers, of this, the mystery (so that you may not [conditional negation] among yourselves be deemed wise): that callousness separating a part has come into being for Israel until [ἄχρις, emphasizing the period of time intervening before what’s mentioned afterward] when the fullness of the nations might enter [aorist subjunctive], 26 and in this way all Israel will be delivered, as it has been written: “There will come out from Sion the one delivering; [TR adds “and” here, NA28 omits it] he will turn back impiety away from Jacob; 27 And this to them from the covenant of mine [Quoting Isaiah 59:20-21 LXX], whenever I may remove the sins of theirs” [Paraphrasing Isaiah 27:9b LXX].
28 Indeed, with respect to the good news [i.e., the gospel message], they are hostile for the sake of you [plural]; yet with respect to the choosing, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For irrevocable are the gifts and the calling of God. 30 For exactly as [TR adds “also” here, NA28 omits it] you [plural] at some time disbelieved in God, yet now were shown compassion through the obstinacy of these ones, 31 in this way also these ones now disbelieved through the mercy of yours, so that also they [NA28 adds “now” here, TR omits it] may be shown compassion. 32 For God enclosed together the wholes [masculine plural form of the word for “all” with a definite article; i.e., Israelites on the collective level along with Gentiles on the collective level] unto obstinacy, so that unto the wholes He might show compassion.

(Romans 11:1-32, my word-for-word translation, boldface and underlining added)

The Romans 11:8 Triad

Paul’s exposition of the quotes from 1 Kings 19 pretty much speaks for itself. But verse 8 is a fusion of three OT quotes: Isaiah 29:10, Deuteronomy 29:4, and Psalm 95:7. Let’s consider the background for each.

The prior chapter has the solitary letter ס at the end, indicating that Isaiah 29 opens a new minor train of thought. This letter then appears on its own again at the end of verses 8, 12, 14, & 21, with the remainder of the chapter kicking off the minor train of thought that continues through 30:5. Verses 1-4 of Isaiah 29 mention God bringing distress and an army to humble the “Lion of God” (the literal meaning of “Ariel”), which verse 1 identifies as the city of Jerusalem. Verses 5-8 then describe how “the multitude of all the nations who wage war against Ariel” (verse 7b 1995 NASB, boldface added) will “become like fine dust, And … like the chaff which blows [literally, “passes”] away” (verse 5b 1995 NASB). This detail wasn’t fulfilled in either destruction of Jerusalem: Babylonia was the only nation that attacked Jerusalem on the first occasion, even though it kind of met this fate 70 years later (it still has descendants among modern-day Iraqis, so it didn’t actually “pass away”); and it took even longer for the same thing to happen to the Romans, who also have living descendants (not to mention the Syrians, Turks, and Arabs who were in Titus’ army that destroyed Jerusalem the second time, whose nations definitely haven’t passed away!). Hence, this must be referring to a still-future time when the remnant populations of every nation that ever waged war with Jerusalem will all be judged–a time that the OT repeatedly calls “the Day of the Lord” (and this identification will be reinforced as this discussion goes on). Then, verses 9-12 discuss what will happen for now:

Be delayed and wait,
Blind yourselves and be blind;
They become drunk, but not with wine,
They stagger, but not with strong drink.
For the Lord has poured over you a spirit of deep sleep,
He has shut your eyes, the prophets;
And He has covered your heads, the seers.
The entire vision will be to you like the words of a sealed book, which when they give it to the one who is literate [literally, “who knows a book”], saying, “Please read this,” he will say, “I cannot, for it is sealed.”
Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate [literally, “who knows not a book”], saying, “Please read this.” And he will say, “I cannot read [literally, “I know not a book”].”

(1995 NASB, underlining added)

Next, Deuteronomy 29 occurs between God’s laying out the curses on Israel for not obeying the Law (Deuteronomy 28:15-68), and His laying out the terms for the nation to be restored to the land after being banished among the nations for disobedience (30:1-14). The solitary letter פ occurs at the end of 29:1, then again at the end of verse 9; this indicates that verses 2-9 constitute a complete major train of thought on their own, so let’s read it:

And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that Jehovah did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; 3 the great trials which thine eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders: 4 but Jehovah hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day [literally, “till the day, the this one”]. 5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxed old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxed old upon thy foot. 6 Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink; that ye may know that I am Jehovah your God. 7 And when ye came unto this place, Sihon the king of Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, came out against us unto battle, and we smote them: 8 and we took their land, and gave it for an inheritance unto the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to the half-tribe of the Manassites. 9 Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do. (Deuteronomy 29:2-9 ASV, underlining and boldface added)

Note the awkward Hebrew phrase עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה at the end of verse 4; the 70 elders who translated the Pentateuch into Greek circa 250 B.C. saw fit to preserve this awkwardness with the rendering ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης (“till the this day”), implying that they didn’t understand the phrase as simply meaning “till today” (represented in Hebrew as עַד הַיּוֹם and in Greek as ἕως σήμερον) or “till this day” (Hebrew עַד יּוֹם זֶה, Greek ἕως ἡμέρας ταύτης). They apparently felt that God had Moses use this awkward phrasing for a reason, and the New Testament vindicated their judgment. Paul’s awkward phrasing ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας (“till the today day”) seems to follow suit, giving us some Apostolic insight into what was meant, yet not quite telling us which day this phrase was supposed to refer to. However, a handful of years later, the author of Hebrews uses a similarly awkward phrase (but, thanks to his more sophisticated vocabulary¹, the least cryptic) while expounding on Psalm 95:7-11 LXX in Hebrews 3:13b: ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἄχρις οὗ τὸ σήμερον καλεῖται (“each and every day until that which is called ‘today’”). I show in Appendix D of my upcoming book that in the context of Hebrews 3 & 4, there was a particular day, still future from when the epistle was being written, that was being called ‘today’ (Greek σήμερον): the one in which Psalm 95 LXX would be quoted to everyone on earth. “[F]or partakers we have become of the Christ, if the beginning of the confidence unto the end we may hold fast, in its being said, ‘To-day, if His voice ye may hear, ye may not harden your hearts, as in the provocation’” (Hebrews 3:14-15 YLT, boldface and underlining added). I further show in that discussion that the day in question will be the day Jesus returns (note the term “the end” in Hebrews 3:14, which refers to the consummation of history); this lines up perfectly with what I said above about Isaiah 29:5-8. It’s worth adding here that the generation of Israelites that Moses originally spoke Deuteronomy 29:4 to were the immediate children of the Israelites that Psalm 95:8b’s mention of “the provocation” (BLXX) was harking back to–the Israelite adults who rebelled at Kadesh Barnea and were sentenced to 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, during which they’d die off:

for certain having heard did provoke, but not all who did come out of Egypt through Moses; but with whom was He grieved forty years? was it not with those who did sin, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness? and to whom did He swear that they shall not enter into His rest, except to those who did not believe? — and we see that they were not able to enter in because of unbelief [properly, “disbelief”, same Greek word as in Romans 11:20,23; I’ll explain the significance of this word below]. (Hebrews 3:16-19 YLT)

So the fact that Paul links all of these passages together in Romans 11:8 tells us that Isaiah 29:9-12 & Deuteronomy 29:4 are fulfilled in the “callousness separating a part” mentioned in Romans 11:25, and further requires that this callousness only last “till the day, the This one” (Deuteronomy 29:4 MT), “till the This day” (ibid. LXX), “till the ‘Today’ day” (Romans 11:8), and “until that day which is called ‘Today’” (Hebrews 3:13)–implying that all these phrases are temporally synonymous with “until when the fullness of the nations might enter” in Romans 11:25c (which is especially reinforced by the fact that the word for “until” is ἄχρις in both Romans 11:25 and Hebrews 3:13). These phrases (after the word “till”/”until”) are all referring to the same ending point in time.

And lest preterists object that “the end” in Hebrews 3:14 refers to the end of Israel’s national existence (which they presume happened in A.D. 135, if not 70), Hebrews 4:1-11 piggybacks off this exposition to give the fullest (though still incomplete) exposition of the doctrine of chiliasm within Scripture. In fact, it places the entry of the faithful from throughout history — per Hebrews 4:2 — into God’s rest (verses 3-11) at the transition between the six periods of “toil” (verses 3-4) and the one period of “sabbatic rest” (verse 9) that follows them, the latter of which is referred to in Revelation 20:2-7 as lasting 1,000 years (after all, both these passages are talking about Christ’s Kingdom following his return, so connecting them in this way is a necessary inference). That is, “the end” of Hebrews 3:14 will occur in the 6,000^th year after Adam’s first sin brought the Curse on creation (the Greek phrase in Hebrews 4:3c, καίτοι τῶν ἔργων ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου γενηθέντων, literally reads “and yet the works from the casting down of the world order were brought into being”). By the chronological information in the Septuagint (which would maximize the number of years between creation and when Hebrews was written), the 6,000^th year would’ve still been about 450 years after A.D. 70, so any attempt to link “the end” with A.D. 70 (or even 135, or for that matter, any year before the early 500s A.D.) still clashes with this passage!

NT Quotations from Psalm 69

Next, let’s consider the original context of the quotation from Psalm 69. For those familiar with the events surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion, this passage will ring a few bells (after all, the Septuagint tends to be more accurate than the Masoretic Text for passages overtly talking about Christ, which is a major reason Judaism stopped utilizing the LXX within a couple centuries of Jesus’ earthly ministry!):

For thou knowest my reproach, and my shame, and my confusion; all that afflict me are before thee.

My soul has waited for reproach and misery; and I waited for one to grieve with me, but there was none; and for one to comfort me, but I found none.

They gave me also gall for my food, and made me drink vinegar for my thirst.

Let their table before them be for a snare, and for a recompence, and for a stumbling-block.

Let their eyes be darkened that they should not see; and bow down their back continually.

Pour out thy wrath upon them, and let the fury of thine anger take hold on them.

Let their habitation be made desolate; and let there be no inhabitant in their tents:

because they persecuted him whom thou hast smitten; and they have added to the grief of my wounds.

Add iniquity to their iniquity; and let them not come into thy righteousness.

Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and let them not be written with the righteous.

(Psalm 69:19-28 BLXX, boldface and underlining added)

Obviously, verse 21 was fulfilled in Matthew 27:34,48; Mark 15:36; Luke 23:36; & John 19:29-30. Peter applied verse 25 to Judas Iscariot in Acts 1:15-20, along with Psalm 109:8c. (Of course, Peter was using the latter to justify choosing a replacement for Judas Iscariot then and there, which was done in Acts 1:21-26. Yet he expressed regret over doing so in 1 Peter 5:3a, where the Greek phrase, μηδ ὡς κατακυριεύοντες τῶν κλήρων, literally exhorts church elders to be “not even as having dominion over the lots” — LGV {scroll to p. 11 in the PDF}. In light of Jesus’ personal calling and training of Paul in the mists of Acts 9 — see Galatians 1:15-17, and note that the events of verse 17 can be placed chronologically between verses 19 & 20 of Acts 9; the word usually rendered “straightway” or “immediately” in verse 20 can also merely mean “soon” — Peter was evidently correct in his application of Psalm 109:8 to Judas Iscariot, but incorrect on when his replacement was to be chosen.) So Paul’s application of this passage (which was clearly prophetic of the people involved with Jesus’ crucifixion) to the “calloused” portion of Israel likely reinforced “those who pierced Christ” as an early Christian epithet for ethnic Israelites (e.g., Revelation 1:7); after all, the Romans may have been “officially” responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion, but Pilate only gave the go-ahead in response to Israelite instigation (see also Acts 2:23,36)!

No Such Thing As “Partially Fulfilled Prophecy”?

Regarding verse 12, I find it particularly ironic that Bob Pulliam denies that the Bible prophesies any still-future plans for national Israel, yet the noun for “completion” or “fulfillment” in this verse, πλήρωμα (plērōma; G4138), is derived from the verb πληρόω (plēroō; G4137). This is significant because Pulliam argues in Lesson 16 of his book that this verb being the ordinary NT word for “fulfill” implies that there’s no such thing as partially-fulfilled prophecy:

Inspired apostles and prophets in the New Testament never spoke of prophecy being “partially” fulfilled. Prophecy coming to its accomplishment is a powerful evidence of God’s work in the affairs of men. For this reason, they spoke of Scripture being “made full” (pleroo), or “filled to their fulness” (ekpleroo). Never does the New Testament leave Old Testament prophecy partially fulfilled. Old Testament prophecies found the fulness of their conclusion in the first century. Therefore, there is nothing left of Old Testament prophecy for modern fulfillment. [Convictions regarding a final resurrection were not “prophecies” (e.g. Job 19:25-27).] Now, the future belongs to prophecies made in the New Testament (studied in lesson 14). {“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 174. Italics in original. Boldface mine. Content in brackets is Pulliam’s footnote indicated at that point in the text. Click here for a discussion of the Job passage.}

So, Pulliam builds his argument on the premise that the verb plēroō always refers to something being “made full”, yet effectively denies that the corresponding noun plērōma connotes a “making full” of Israel after their “lapse” in the rhetorical question of Romans 11:12! He can’t have it both ways! Of course, Ezekiel 26:3-14 singlehandedly disproves his claim that every OT prophecy was fulfilled by the end of the first century, since its fulfillment started in the 6^th century B.C. and ended in the 13^th century A.D.! Hence, this prophecy was only partially fulfilled by the end of the 1^st century (i.e., verses 3-12 were fulfilled by then, but verses 13-14 weren’t)! To put that in perspective: the only country on Earth whose land was never inhabited by humans until after A.D. 1000 is New Zealand,

and at the time humans first reached it, this prophecy was still only partially fulfilled (A.D. 1280 versus 1291)! Moreover, the word ekplēroō (G1603), which certainly would demand this connotation, occurs only once in the entire Bible: Acts 13:33, where it’s used with reference to Jesus’ coming from David’s loins in fulfillment of the “seed of Abraham” promise made to the Genesis patriarchs (look back in the context to verse 23, where the oldest Greek manuscripts have “brought forth” instead of “raised up”–indeed, Pulliam’s preferred translation, the 1995 NASB, has “has brought” in verse 23; of course, both Jesus’ birth and resurrection were completely in the past when Paul said this!).

Life Out From Among Dead Ones

Verse 15 is noteworthy not just for the parallel to the rhetorical question of verse 12, but for linking “the admission of them” with “life out from among dead ones”. As I explain in Appendix E of my upcoming book, Philippians 3:11 refers to “the first resurrection” (Revelation 20:5c KJV) as “the out-from-among resurrection, the one out from among dead ones” (my word-for-word translation of the phrase in NA28, τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν) — that is, a resurrection of some of the dead that leaves the rest of the dead behind (again, compare with Revelation 20:5). Likewise, the phrase “life out from among dead ones” in Romans 11:15 is referring to an event where some dead ones are given life, while the rest of the dead ones stay dead. Hence, this verse is linking “the first resurrection” with “the admission of” the “calloused” portion of Israel. Hence, these phrases are all temporally synonymous with Jesus’ return, his parousia (per 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 & 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16; these passages use the Greek word parousia in verses 23 & 15, respectively)!

The Olive Tree Parable

In verse 16, Paul relates the “firstfruits” to the “dough”, and the “root” to the “branches”. The former entity in each relationship refers to God’s Son, in light of chronological Biblical precedent (“firstfruits” is used for Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:20,23 — which was written before Romans — and “root” in Isaiah 11:1,10 LXX; Paul even quotes the latter verse in Romans 15:12!²). You may read more about these allegories here.

The olive tree parable also gives us a detail that may help explain how the conversion versus rejection of Israelites upon Jesus’ return will work. Note that the condition for broken off branches to be grafted back in is that “they are staying not in the disbelief”. Most English translations render the boldfaced word as “unbelief”, which would include both people who willfully reject Jesus and people who haven’t heard enough about him to make up their mind either way. But the word properly refers to “disbelief”, which would include only the former category. Also note that a couple chapters earlier, Paul said that “not all who are of [literally, “all those out from”] Israel are these Israel” (Romans 9:6c YLT); the first instance of “Israel” in this verse refers to those who descended from the loins of Jacob (per the use of the preposition ἐξ), while the second instance refers to those who are reckoned as heirs of the promises to Abraham and his seed (per verses 3-5 & 7-8). This affords us a way to reconcile the claim in Romans 11:26 that “all Israel will be delivered” with the fact that Amos 5:18-20 implies that some Israelites will die along with the wicked of other nations on the Day of the Lord, despite both being prophesied to occur on the same day. Romans 11:26 is referring to “Israel” in the latter sense of 9:6; Amos was referring to Israelites who are in the former category, but not the latter. Neither would any children of Amos’ Israelites who hadn’t yet been taught to reject Jesus be classed among those “staying in the disbelief”, because they had yet to enter “the disbelief” in the first place.

“When the fullness of the nations might enter”

Warner points out {scroll to the footnote for “fullness” on p. 28 in the PDF} that the word for “fullness” in verse 25 introduces a slight ambiguity. The “fullness of the Gentiles” could refer to the fullness of the time allotted (look back at verse 5) for the nations before Christ takes charge of them (see Luke 21:24, Galatians 4:4, Ephesians 1:10), the fullness of the number of wild branches (Gentiles) to be added to the olive tree of verses 16-24 (see also Ephesians 2:11-19, which I’ll discuss below), or both. Since the word for “mystery” earlier in the verse referred to something that was previously heard/known, but not fully understood (e.g., see Mark 4:1-20, especially verses 10-12), Paul must have been using this statement to clarify the mystery, so which of these possibilities was intended must have been obvious to his original readers. In light of the immediate context, the second possibility was most likely the one intended (especially since the verb for “might enter” doesn’t work very well with a time period as its subject); but that alone doesn’t rule out the first from occurring at the same time as the second (indeed, we just saw that it will, since Christ takes charge of the nations on the Day of the Lord!). But in all cases, this would place the ending condition at a time still future from our own.

Now, when I directed the guy mentioned at the beginning of this post to verses 11-32 of this passage, he started by saying “that’s a bit long…”, so I told him to skip to verses 25-32. He read verse 25 out loud, stopped right there, and said “that happened when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem.” If your initial reaction was “How in the world do you get that as the most likely meaning of the phrase ‘the fullness of the Gentiles come in’?”, join the club. My first reply in the moment was “Where did you get that definition?” (And by the way, I had to ask the question a second time to get him to answer it; never let an opponent dodge these kinds of foundational questions!) His attempt at an answer made it clear that he was simply imposing that meaning on the phrase to force-fit the passage to his “semi-preterist” preconceptions. This is circular reasoning and eisegesis, plain and simple (I was tempted to say “eisegesis of the worst kind”, but the reality is that I’ve seen much, much worse {the video in this tweet is the single worst example to come to my attention by the time I first uploaded this post; if you’re aware of an even worse example of eisegesis, feel free to link to it in the comments!}).

Isaiah 59 & 27 LXX

Note that verses 26 & 27 are a fusion of two quotes from the Septuagint version of Isaiah. Let’s consider each of their original contexts:

Has the hand of the Lord no power to save? or has he made his ear heavy, so that he should not hear? 2 Nay, your iniquities separate between you and God, and because of your sins has he turned away his face from you, so as not to have mercy upon you. 3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with sins; your lips also have spoken iniquity, and your tongue meditates unrighteousness.
4 None speaks justly, neither is there true judgment: they trust in vanities, and speak empty words; for they conceive trouble, and bring forth iniquity. 5 They have hatched asps’ eggs, and weave a spider’s web: and he that is going to eat of their eggs, having crushed an addled egg, has found also in it a basilisk [transliterated from βασιλίσκος, which occurs only here in the entire Greek Bible; the Hebrew word, אֶפְעֶה, refers to some kind of venomous serpent]. 6 Their web shall not become a garment, nor shall they at all clothe themselves with their works; for their works are works of iniquity. 7 And their feet run to wickedness, swift to shed blood; their thoughts also are thoughts of murder; destruction and misery are in their ways; 8 and the way of peace they know not, neither is there judgment in their ways; for their paths by which they go are crooked, and they know not peace.
9 Therefore has judgment departed from them, and righteousness shall not overtake them: while they waited for light, darkness came upon them; while they waited for brightness, they walked in perplexity. 10 They shall feel for the wall as blind men, and shall feel for it as if they had no eyes: and they shall feel at noon-day as at midnight; they shall groan as dying men. 11 They shall proceed together as a bear and as a dove: we have waited for judgment, and there is no salvation, it is gone far from us.
12 For our iniquity is great before thee, and our sins have risen up against us: for our iniquities are in us, and we know our unrighteous deeds. 13 We have sinned, and dealt falsely, and revolted from our God: we have spoken unrighteous words, and have been disobedient; we have conceived and uttered from our heart unrighteous words. 14 And we have turned judgment back, and righteousness has departed afar off: for truth is consumed in their ways, and they could not pass by a straight path. 15 And truth has been taken away, and they have turned aside their mind from understanding.
And the Lord saw it, and it pleased him not that there was no judgment. 16 And he looked, and there was no man, and he observed, and there was none to help: so he defended them with his arm, and stablished them with his mercy. 17 And he put on righteousness as a breast-plate, and placed the helmet of salvation on his head; and he clothed himself with the garment of vengeance, and with his cloak, 18 as one about to render a recompence, even reproach to his adversaries. 19 So shall they of the west fear the name of the Lord, and they that come from the rising of the sun his glorious name: for the wrath of the Lord shall come as a mighty river, it shall come with fury.
20 And the deliverer shall come for Sion’s sake, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. 21 And this shall be my covenant with them, said the Lord; My Spirit which is upon thee, and the words which I have put in thy mouth, shall never fail from thy mouth, nor from the mouth of thy seed, for the Lord has spoken it, henceforth and for ever.

(Isaiah 59:1-21 BLXX, boldface and underlining added)

Verses 1-15 speak of Israel’s sins, which separate them from YHWH. Verse 16 says that since no man helps the situation, He’d do it Himself. Verses 17-19 then refer to “the Lord” arming himself as a warrior to give his enemies what they deserve, so that his name will be feared by people of the west and the east. This must be referring to Jesus showing up as the all-conquering King on the Day of the Lord (compare Revelation 19:11-21); remember, the Father and His Son both go by the name YHWH (“the Lord”) in the OT. This understanding is confirmed in verse 20, and verse 21 mentions that God’s Breath and words will never cease from the mouths of Israelites, nor those of their children (further implying that some Israelites will be having children after this time, consistent with the point made above about the difference between unbelief and disbelief).

In that day God shall bring his holy and great and strong sword upon the dragon, even the serpent that flees, upon the dragon, the crooked serpent: he shall destroy the dragon. 2 In that day there shall be a fair vineyard, and a desire to commence a song concerning it. 3 I am a strong city, a city in a siege: in vain shall I water it; for it shall be taken by night, and by day the wall shall fall. 4 There is no woman that has not taken hold of it; who will set me to watch stubble in the field? because of this enemy I have set her aside; therefore on this account the Lord has done all that he appointed. 5 I am burnt up; they that dwell in her shall cry, Let us make peace with him, let us make peace, 6 they that are coming are the children of Jacob. Israel shall bud and blossom, and the world shall be filled with his fruit.
7 Shall he himself be thus smitten, even as he smote? and as he slew, shall he be thus slain? 8 Fighting and reproaching he will dismiss them; didst thou not meditate with a harsh spirit, to slay them with a wrathful spirit? 9 Therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be taken away; and this is his blessing, when I shall have taken away his sin; when they shall have broken to pieces all the stones of the altars as fine dust, and their trees [the MT has אֲשֵׁרִ֖ים (H842), which is the plural form of both a common noun for “grove” and the proper name “Asherah”, a pagan goddess associated with the Tree of Life, and thus often worshipped with sacred trees; hence, this is probably referring to Asherah poles] shall not remain, and their idols shall be cut off, as a thicket afar off. 10 The flock that dwelt there shall be left, as a deserted flock; and the ground shall be for a long time for pasture, and there shall flocks lie down to rest. 11 And after a time there shall be in it no green thing because of the grass being parched. Come hither, ye women that come from a sight [literally, “come away from a goddess”]; for it is a people of no understanding; therefore he that made them shall have no pity upon them, and he that formed them shall have no mercy upon them.
12 And it shall come to pass in that day that God shall fence men off from the channel of the river as far as Rhinocorura; but do ye gather one by one the children of Israel. 13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that they shall blow the great trumpet, and the lost ones in the land of the Assyrians shall come, and the lost ones in Egypt, and shall worship the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem.

(Isaiah 27:1-13 BLXX, boldface and underlining added)

Verse 1 is clearly referring to Satan being bound (Revelation 20:1-3); note that the verb Brenton rendered “destroy” properly means “to take up”, and can mean “to abolish” or “to put out of the way” {scroll to entry II. under “Outline of Biblical Usage”}. Verses 3-5 refer to city dwellers being in fear, and verse 6 reveals that it’s because Israelites are coming to conquer them. Then, verse 9 links God taking away the sins of Israel with all idolatrous devices being destroyed and removed; this lines up with Isaiah’s first discussion of the Day of the Lord, where he twice mentions that “the LORD alone will be exalted in that day” (Isaiah 2:11c,17c 1995 NASB). Also note the mention in verses 10-11 of God laying waste to pagan territory, yet sparing any citizens thereof who are willing to reject their idols and turn to Him. Finally, the mention of “the lost ones” from Assyria and Egypt “worship[ping] the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem” lines up with the prophecy in Isaiah 19:19-25 about Egypt and Assyria (alongside Israel) worshiping YHWH on the national level. Overall, the fact that Paul applied this passage alongside Isaiah 59 shows that these events will all come to pass (or at least commence) at the same time Romans 11:25c-26a is fulfilled: the Day of the Lord.

Stubbornness and Compassion

Finally, not only does Romans 11:28a agree with verse 11c that the “calloused” portion of ethnic Israel has been provoked to jealously and hostility by salvation and the good news reaching the Gentiles, but it goes on to mention that ethnic Israelites who’ve been “calloused” in the present age are nonetheless, “with respect to the choosing, … beloved for the sake of the fathers”, who are, of course, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Now, why is that a good enough reason for them to remain “beloved” despite their hostility toward the gospel? Because “irrevocable are the gifts and the calling of God.” (verse 29c) This also includes the promise that God would give the land in which Abraham lived as a foreigner “to [Abraham] and to [his] seed [singular] after [him]” as an age-enduring {HIDMF, p. 87, Fn. 87.} possession (Genesis 17:8b YLT), since Stephen (Acts 7:5) and the author of Hebrews (11:8-10, 13-16) clearly stated that Abraham never possessed the land within his lifetime; hence, the fulfillment of that promise must occur when Abraham is resurrected to live in the land for the rest of eternity. This, of course, demands that the land of Israel still be around at that time for Abraham to possess. This also explains why God has permitted Judaism to stick around for all these centuries, despite its inefficacy for salvation: to preserve enough members of His ancient nation across time to bring about its restoration when the time is right (and have Jewish converts to Christianity from every generation in the meantime).

It’s worth adding that verses 30-32 show that Israel rejecting the gospel was part of God’s plan to put Israel and Gentile nations in the same boat–both being in a state of rebellion against God so that both can experience God’s love, having compassion extended to them in a state of being where they don’t deserve it. Between this and all the OT prophecies quoted in verses 8-10, I think it’s clear that we should reject the idea (which Pulliam attributes to Dispensationalism) that God intended to restore Israel to a self-ruling nation in the first century, yet didn’t “because things just didn’t work out right” {“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. 174.}. God knew from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10) that national Israel would (at least initially) reject His Son, and so brilliantly incorporated that rejection into His plan to redeem it along with the rest of the human race. (And before anyone accuses me of being a universalist: all my statements in this paragraph were meant on the collective level, not the individual level.)

Trying To Explain Away The Obvious

On the whole, this passage and the other passages connected with it clearly teach in multiple ways that Israel will indeed be restored someday in the future! As I’d heard the guy I quoted at the beginning of this post say in response to my laying out Gary Habermas’ response to when Lee Strobel asked him to “Convince me [1 Corinthians 15:3-7]’s a creed” {“The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus”. Strobel, Lee. 1998. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 309.}³: “Would you like any more redundancy?”

Due to how devastating this passage is for the idea that national Israel has no Biblically-significant future, I decided to see if Pulliam quotes from Romans 11 at all in his book to try explaining it away. Let’s look over what I found:

Dispensationalists try to counter any view that would make the church, in some way, a fulfillment of the new covenant. To do this, an appeal is made to the unchangeable nature of the covenant. Arguments are made from passages depicting the beloved nature of the Jews. For example, Paul wrote:

“² God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?”

(Romans 11:2 [1995 NASB])

The assumption here is that God’s initial purpose for the Jews had to last until the end of the world. That assumption is based on a flawed view of the covenant to Abraham (studied in lesson 6). If God determined to save the Jews in a way other than through a continued possession of the land, He would still count them as beloved. They are beloved in Christ where all spiritual blessings are found (Eph 1:3, 7, 12; 2:10; 3:6). They were not left out.

{“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 130-131. Italics, indentation, and contents in parentheses in original. Content in brackets mine.}

Of course Pulliam would quote a single verse from the one paragraph in the entire passage that makes the point the least forcefully! Nonetheless, even this verse does indeed refer to Israel as a nation (not as individuals, as his explanation requires). Let’s look again at my more precise translation of this verse, originally given above (albeit with even more formatting than used above, since the details are more relevant here):

God thrusted away not [absolute negation, not conditional; note that the object of the verb “thrusted away” is a singular group rather than a plural of individuals, consistent with the unconditionality being meant on the collective level, not the individual level] the people group [singular] of His which He knew previously [misleadingly rendered “foreknew”, “chose from the beginning”, “chose before they were born”, etc. in most English translations, giving cover to Calvinistic predestination; “the people group of His which He knew previously” actually refers to the nation of Israel, which God had known personally before Paul’s time]. Or have you not perceived in Elijah what the Scripture says? How he entreats God against Israel [TR adds “, saying”; NA28 omits it]:

At first, I understood “the people group of His which He knew previously” to refer to all the faithful from throughout history before Paul’s time, because I was already familiar with the phrase “whom He foreknew” (NKJV) being used with that meaning (including the same verb for “knew previously”, προέγνω, the aorist active indicative 3^rd-person singular form of G4267) earlier in this same epistle–in perhaps the best-known proof-text for Calvinistic predestination, Romans 8:29 (note that the verbs rendered “predestined”, “called”, “justified”, and “glorified” in the NKJV of verses 29-30 are all aorist-tense–Paul was talking about past actions of God here, not ongoing ones!). But then I remembered that the Greek word for “people group” (λαός; laos, G2992) doesn’t occur in that passage; moreover, laos is singular in Romans 11:2, implying a single ethnic group: the Israelites (and this word is only used in verses 1-2 in this entire passage, meaning there’s no later instance to suggest an understanding other than an ethnic group; indeed, this word has this meaning all 6 of the other times it occurs in Romans).

As for Pulliam’s point that “God determined to save the Jews in a way other than through a continued possession of the land”, this confuses national restoration with individual salvation (a distinction I’ll discuss more fully later). A person can be genealogically part of Israel, but they won’t get to enjoy the perks of being an Israelite in the New Heavens & New Earth if their heart is still rejecting God’s will. Instead, they’ll get killed by Jesus himself at his return if they live to see it (Isaiah 63:1-6), and thrown in the Lake of Fire if they don’t live to see it (Revelation 20:11-15, cf. verse 5)–and both these outcomes are equally true for wicked Gentiles.

Finally, his claim that Paul meant that “They are beloved in Christ where all spiritual blessings are found” overlooks the fact that the reason why they are still beloved is spelled out further into the same passage: God promised possession of the land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 13:15, 17:8, 24:7, 26:3, 28:4,13, 35:12, 48:4), and He still needs to make good on that promise (Acts 7:5; Hebrews 11:8-10,13-16).

28 Indeed, with respect to the good news [i.e., the gospel], they are hostile for the sake of you [plural]; yet with respect to the choosing, THEY ARE BELOVED FOR THE SAKE OF THE FATHERS. 29 FOR IRREVOCABLE ARE THE GIFTS AND THE CALLING OF GOD. (All-caps added compared to above.)

Pulliam has analyzed Romans 11:2 in isolation from its context, in order to deny something that’s affirmed in the context!

But to his credit, he did also try in Appendix One to attack the most direct statements in this entire passage:

The huge difference in this doctrinal system [dispensationalism, compared to amillennialism] is not really so much that it makes the church distinct from Israel, as is sometimes claimed [Pulliam indicates a footnote here explaining that Amillennialism also holds the church to be distinct from Israel; as you’ve probably gathered, so do I]. The main difference is actually found in the fact that they have a dual purpose in God’s plan, where Israel is still awaiting the fulfillment of past promises.
While Paul uses the word “Israel” in a way that seems to validate a dual purpose (e.g. Acts 28:20, Rom 11:25-26), context and other passages force us to understand that these are an accommodative use to speak of being God’s chosen people (e.g. Rom 2:28f). This should be no surprise, since Israel was God’s chosen people (as a nation) for 1,400 years before the events of the New Testament. Additionally, the gospel went to the Jew first, and the concept was very natural, but it does not mean that the terminology is teaching a further purpose for the nation of Israel in the future.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 270-271. Italics and boldface in original. Underlining and content in brackets mine.}

Oh? Pulliam thinks Romans 2:28 shows that God wasn’t teaching any future purpose for the nation of Israel in 11:25-26? Why don’t we look at that verse in its context and see if it bears out what Pulliam’s saying?

25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law [literally, “practice a law”; no definite article]; but if you are a transgressor of the Law [literally, “of a law”], your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man [literally, “the uncircumcision”] keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter [literally, “who through the letter”] of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law [literally, “of a law”]? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. (Romans 2:25-29 1995 NASB, underlining and boldface added)

Note well the mention of “circumcision … of the heart”. This phrase is synonymous with repentance, as indicated in the opening verses of Jeremiah 4:

1 “If you will return, O Israel,” declares the LORD,
“Then you should return to Me.
And if you will put away your detested things from My presence,
And will not waver,
2 And you will swear, ‘As the LORD lives,’
In truth, in justice and in righteousness;
Then the nations will bless themselves in Him,
And in Him they will glory.”

3 For thus says the LORD to the men of Judah and to Jerusalem,

“Break up your fallow ground,
And do not sow among thorns.
4 “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD
And remove the foreskins of your heart,
Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem,
Or else My wrath will go forth like fire
And burn with none to quench it,
Because of the evil of your deeds.”
(Jeremiah 4:1-4 1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added)

However, there’s an even earlier reference to “circumcision of the heart” in Deuteronomy 30:

1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee [2^nd-person singular; and so on throughout the passage], the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither Jehovah thy God hath driven thee, 2 and shalt return unto Jehovah thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; 3 that then Jehovah thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither Jehovah thy God hath scattered thee. 4 If any of thine outcasts be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will Jehovah thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: 5 and Jehovah thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. 6 And Jehovah thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. 7 And Jehovah thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, that persecuted thee. 8 And thou shalt return and obey the voice of Jehovah, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day. 9 And Jehovah thy God will make thee plenteous in all the work of thy hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, for good: for Jehovah will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers; 10 if thou shalt obey the voice of Jehovah thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul. (Deuteronomy 30:1-10 ASV, boldface and underlining added)

While all the 2^nd-person terms are singular, implying a single entity, a single person can’t be driven among and brought back from multiple nations. This shows that the singular entity of these verses is the nation of Israel, not any particular person within it. Bear in mind that Moses laid out these restoration terms at a time when no Israelites had yet possessed the land (after all, Genesis, Stephen, & Hebrews 11 are crystal-clear that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his early descendants didn’t own any of the land they lived on while in the land of Canaan!), nor had the Israelites ever yet been driven among multiple nations from the land (at best, you could count Egypt, but no other nation). Moreover, the Israelites were only driven among two nations the first time around: Assyria and Babylonia. Plus, the promise for God to circumcise the singular entity’s (national Israel’s) heart and that of its seed hasn’t been fulfilled a single time so far (after all, while the generation that was restored repented, their descendants always went on to eventually rebel against God again!). Hence, this entire passage must be referring to a restoration that hasn’t happened yet, and verse 10 lays out the conditions that modern-day Israel must meet to make it happen and have their divine right to the land and their status as an independent nation restored for the rest of eternity.

Pulliam’s attempts to explain away passages are starting to remind me of a quote by the late Ravi Zacharias (remember, what we’ve since learned about him doesn’t compromise the legitimacy of this statement): “The more you try to hammer the law of non-contradiction, the more it hammers you.” {“Can Man Live Without God?”. Zacharias, Ravi. 1994. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing. 129. Quoted in “The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict”. McDowell, Josh. 1999. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. 607.} It seems that also goes for passages prophesying that God still has a future for national Israel.

I’ve also seen someone named Barrack Ongaro trying to shoot down this passage on Facebook. Here’s my point-by-point rebuttal to the portions of substance:

Millennialists argue, however, that Jerusalem was to be trodden down only “until” the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled. After that time, they contend, Jerusalem will be exalted to her former glory.

The key word in their argument is “until” (Greek, achri). Premillennialists assume the term has a temporal implication in Luke 21:24, thus implying a reversal of events after the time specified.

But the assumption is unwarranted. The term achri frequently has a terminal thrust in the New Testament.

Consider, for example, Revelation 2:25, where Christ sought to encourage the saints at Thyatira:

“[T]hat which ye have, hold fast till I come.”

Does this suggest that these Christians will relinquish their blessings when he comes? Of course not.

Similarly, just because the Lord declared that Jerusalem would be trodden down until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, that does not imply that, following “the times of the Gentiles,” the city would be restored to some sort of divine glory. Proof for such a theory will have to be found somewhere other than in the word “until.”

Achri “frequently” has a terminal thrust? Try ALWAYS. And not even Revelation 2:25 is an exception: Ongaro’s mistake is assuming that “that which ye have” refers to the blessings promised to Christians, which will continue into eternity and become ever greater. But this statement is actually referring to the faith of the Christians in ancient Thyatira and their hope for the rest of eternity. Christians will indeed cease to “hold fast” these things when Jesus returns, as Paul implied in 1 Corinthians 13:13: “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” (NIV) It’s well known that Paul meant that on the other side of eternity, love will still have a role to play, but faith and hope will be unnecessary, because the objects of our faith and hope will be fully realized. Ongaro’s claim that “such a theory will have to be found somewhere other than in the word ‘until’” denies the very meaning of the word “until”! (Seriously, can you think of a sentence where “until” doesn’t imply an endpoint for something?) Really, this argument just shows the mental gymnastics some people are willing to perform to deny that God’s words mean what they clearly say.

In his letter to the Romans, Paul contends that “a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in” (Rom. 11:25).

There are several important matters that need to be noted here.

First, the “hardening” was the Jewish disbelief in Christ.

Second, the “in part” suggests that this lack of faith was characteristic of only a portion of the nation; there was a remnant that did believe (cf. Rom. 9:27; 11:5, 14).

Third, the verb “hath befallen” is a perfect tense form, stressing the abiding nature of that hardness—until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in.

Fourth, “fulness of the Gentiles” simply denotes the accomplishment of Jehovah’s purpose among the Gentiles (or the “nations”). In other words, Israel’s hardness will remain until the end of the present dispensation. This partial hardening will continue throughout the time of the Gentiles, i.e., until Christ’s return.

Since the hardening of Israel was not total, but only “in part,” there is still hope that many Jews may be saved.

Okay, but again, the “hardening in part” is said to occur “until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in”. Since we’ve established that the word “until” does indeed have a terminal thrust, what would Ongaro’s takeaway from that be: that the “hardening” will no longer be in part at that time (i.e., all Israelites will be hardened, and therefore lost), or that the “hardening” will cease to exist entirely (i.e., no living Israelites will be hardened)? I hold to the latter, on a technicality: once all those Israelites who are hardened are killed by Jesus on the Day of the Lord, only unhardened Israelites will remain!

But how will the Jews be saved? They will be saved by their acceptance of the gospel (Rom. 10:12-16), and their surrender to the Deliverer from Zion (Rom. 11:26).

This provides the correct meaning of “so all Israel shall be saved.” The word “so” is an adverb of manner, meaning, “in this way.” Hence, it is in this way (the way of obeying Christ) that all Israel (who are saved) shall be saved. This passage does not affirm a nation-wide conversion of the people of Israel.

The theory that Paul expected a mass conversion of Israel is flawed on several accounts:

It contradicts his entire line of argument in Romans 9-11.

It leaves as inexplicable the throbbing anguish for his brethren in the flesh, which saturates this entire section.

For instance, Paul writes: “For I could wish [potential imperfect—”I kept being on point of wishing”] that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3).

Why—if he knew that a national conversion of Israel was an ultimate reality?

I agree that individual Israelites will be saved in the present age by embracing Jesus as their Messiah and obeying him accordingly, but why should that rule out a restoration of Israel on the national level? Also, his claim that the understanding of Romans 11 laid out here “contradicts [Paul’s] entire line of argument in Romans 9-11” is unsupported except by the argument that follows–which itself isn’t as airtight as Ongaro seems to think. Why would Paul grieve his “kinsmen according to the flesh” — even to the point of wanting to give up his place in the Kingdom if it meant they could get in — if he knew Israel would be restored in the future? For the same reason Christians who are looking forward to their eternal inheritance would grieve their own family members who refuse to obey the gospel. Our knowledge of a future reality doesn’t diminish our heartache for those among our own who forfeit it in the meantime! Paul’s sentiments would’ve been common among Israelite Christians in the 1^st century–grief for their own family members who’d been looking forward to the Kingdom, but were now forfeiting it out of sheer callousness!

I often point out that those who are ignorant of the gospel (i.e., have never had a chance to accept or reject it) will have potential to be spared on the Day of the Lord. But that assumes that they live to see it! So in the meantime, we should continue spreading the gospel so such people can be guaranteed to participate in the first resurrection. The same goes for Israelites–aside from Israelite Christians (who are guaranteed to be spared), the only Israelites who will have potential for Jesus to spare them on the Day of the Lord are those alive on that day who are ignorant of the gospel and/or give aid to those who are God’s people “of the promise” (Romans 9:8 KJV) during the Tribulation (Matthew 25:31-46). Israelites who die in rebellion against Christ between Pentecost and Jesus’ return have forfeited their lot in the Kingdom of God; these Israelites “according to the flesh” (at least, such Israelites who were contemporaries of Paul) are the ones Paul was grieving in Romans 9:3 (note the distinction brought out in verses 6-8, discussed above).

The Commonwealth Of Israel, Bride of Christ, & Jerusalem Above

Perhaps the next-most-direct statement in Scripture in this regard is Ephesians 2:12. Here’s the context:

11 Wherefore, remember, that ye were once the nations in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, 12 that ye were at that time apart from Christ, having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world; 13 and now, in Christ Jesus, ye being once afar off became nigh in the blood of the Christ,

14 for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down, 15 the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new [properly, “renewed”; the Greek word, G2537, connotes freshness, rather than youth] man, making peace, 16 and might reconcile both in one body [Jesus’ body on the cross] to God through the cross, having slain the enmity in it, 17 and having come, he did proclaim good news — peace to you — the far-off and the nigh, 18 because through him we have the access — we both — in one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Then, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of [or “among”] the saints, and of the household of God (Ephesians 2:11-19 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

Note the parallelism in verse 12 between being “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel” and being “strangers to the covenants of the promise”. This parallelism implies that the commonwealth of Israel was already understood by Paul and his readers as an heir to the covenants of promise (the Abrahamic, Davidic, & New Covenants).

Amillennialists would almost certainly counter that the statements in verses 14-19 are referring to the Church, not the nation of Israel. Fair enough, but it overlooks the fact that the relationship of both Israel and the Church with Christ are portrayed as a marriage contract in both Testaments. In a nutshell: Israel played the harlot against YHWH (here referring to God’s Son), so the Father drew up a new marriage contract for His Son (Jeremiah 31:31-34; note the phrase “though I was a husband to them” in verse 32, where the Hebrew verb is perfect-tense–a completed action), which will be consummated at Christ’s return (Revelation 19:7-9)–except the Church will be included in that contract, along with national Israel; in the meantime, Israelites who enter into the New marriage contract have been freed from their obligations under the Old marriage contract.

Don’t buy that explanation? Paul said pretty much the same thing:

1 Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage [literally, “the law of (or “concerning”) the husband”]. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. (Romans 7:1-4 ESV)

In other words, the Son Himself died so that the one pledged to be married to him under the Old contract (Israel) — yet who played the harlot, necessitating a New contract — could be legitimately married to Him under the New contract. This is what Paul was alluding to in Ephesians 2:14-18 (note especially verses 15-16). Hence, the fact that these statements are talking about the Church doesn’t imply that national Israel won’t be included as well. On the contrary, Biblical precedent demands that Gentile believers are the children of this family! (Isaiah 8:18, quoted in Hebrews 2:13; Isaiah 54:1-13, partially quoted in Galatians 4:26-27)

As a bonus, that last reference refutes the use of a proof-text for the idea that the Jerusalem we’ll inherit won’t be on Earth: Galatians 4:26.

Looking back at Isaiah 54 (the fuller context the quotation of verse 27 was taken from) tells us who “the Jerusalem that is above” actually is, and why Paul here reckons himself and his original readers as being among her “children”, rather than directly identifying them with her as the “wife” (as normally seen in “bride of Christ” passages).

Some Standing Here Will Not Taste Death…

Having addressed the phrase “this generation” in the Great Temple and Olivet Discourses earlier in this post, this is a good time to address the other main proof-texts many amillennialists (and especially preterists) use to support their claims that Jesus’ kingdom arrived in its full form within the disciples’ lifetimes:

“Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28 ESV)

“And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come [literally, “God, having come”] with power.”” (Mark 9:1 ESV)

“But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:27 ESV)

The use of the word “see” (which, in all three passages, is ἴδωσιν, the Aorist, Active, Subjunctive, 3^rd-Person Plural form — i.e., “they may see” — of ὁράω, G3708, a verb properly meaning “to stare at”) is more critical than you might think. Many think this prediction of Jesus was fulfilled at Pentecost (despite the fact that 11 of the 12 people he was speaking to living to see that would suggest “most” or “many” would be more appropriate than “some”), and so deride anyone who says his Kingdom won’t arrive until the future. Ironically, this prediction wasn’t to be fulfilled after Pentecost, but before! For that matter, it was fulfilled before Jesus’ resurrection, crucifixion, or even his passion week! In fact, it was fulfilled within 8 days of being spoken (Luke 9:28).⁴ Peter, one of the ones who got to “see the kingdom of God, having come with power” (recall that Mark’s account in particular was based on Peter’s recollections), reminded Gentile Christians about it shortly before he did “taste death” about three-and-a-half decades later:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power [Mark 9:1c] and coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” [Matthew 17:5] we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. (2 Peter 1:16-18 ESV, boldface and underlining added)

This promise was fulfilled on the Mount of Transfiguration, where Peter, John, and John’s older brother James got to see a vision of Jesus talking with Moses and Elijah in his future kingdom. Therefore, those “standing here who [would] not taste death until they [saw]” Christ’s kingdom were Peter, James, and John. Nothing in the phrasing of Jesus’ prediction required that the Kingdom would arrive before all of those he was speaking to “taste[d] death”; all he promised was that some of them would see the Kingdom before “tast[ing] death”.

A Proof-Text For Preterism?

Peter’s mention of “the voice [that] was borne to him by the Majestic Glory” makes for a surprisingly appropriate segue to another passage that preterists have jumped on to support the idea that all the Kingdom prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled:

See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not when they refused him that warned them on earth [Moses at Mount Sinai, per the preceding context], much more shall not we escape who turn away from him that warneth from heaven [see Matthew 3:17, 17:5, & John 12:27-30]: whose voice then shook the earth [cf. Exodus 19:16-19]: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more will I make to tremble not the earth only, but also the heaven [loosely quoting Haggai 2:6 LXX]. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing [literally, “the transposition”; i.e., “the replacing”] of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made [literally, “of those which have been constructed”; the participle is masculine, not neuter], [so] that those things which are not shaken may remain. Wherefore, receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace, whereby we may offer service well-pleasing to God with reverence and awe: for our God is a consuming fire. [Quoting Deuteronomy 4:24 LXX, but with the pronoun in 1^st-person plural rather than 2^nd-person singular] (Hebrews 12:25-29 ASV, boldface and underlining added)

Preterists fixate on the fact that the participle for “receiving” in verse 28 is present tense, and insist that this shows that the kingdom that Jews (including the Christians this letter was originally written to) had been looking forward to for centuries was already present in its fullest form when the letter to the Hebrews was written. As you’re probably guessing from how much I quoted beyond verse 28, this argument is refuted by more careful consideration of the context. But first, let’s address the present tense of the participle. The timing of a present tense verb is actually more flexible in Greek than in English. Dan Wallace spent some 26 pages of his now-standard Greek Grammar textbook covering different uses of the present tense {“Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament”. Wallace, Daniel B. 1996. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic. 513-539.}, and one of those uses is the “Futuristic Present”, which

typically adds the connotations of immediacy and certainty. Most instances involve verbs whose lexical meaning involves anticipation… This usage is relatively common.… Only an examination of the context will help one see whether this use of the present stresses immediacy or certainty. In this respect, the ambiguity of the semantic nuance of the completely futuristic present is akin to the ambiguity of the lexical nuance of μέλλω (which usually means either “I am about to” [immediacy] or “I will inevitably” [certainty]). … The present tense may describe an event begun in the present time, but completed in the future. Especially is this used with verbs of coming, going, etc., though it is rarer than the wholly futuristic present.

{Ibid. 535-537. Italics and brackets in original.}

Wallace offers Luke 3:16, John 4:25, 11:11, Romans 6:9, 1 Corinthians 16:5, 2 Corinthians 13:1, & Revelation 22:20 as examples of “Completely Futuristic”, and Matthew 26:45, Mark 10:33, John 4:23, & Acts 20:22 as examples of “Mostly Futuristic”. Hence, the use of παραλαμβάνοντες, the nominative plural masculine present-tense active participle of G3880 (a compound word properly meaning “receive near” {Scroll to “Strong’s Definitions”}) could just as easily have been intended to emphasize the certainty of the faithful receiving the Kingdom, rather than the timing. Only an examination of the context can tell us which sense was intended, so let’s move on to that.

The use of the phrase “now he hath promised” leading into a future-tense statement in verse 26 tells us that the author of Hebrews was saying the fulfillment of the “promise” was still future from his own time–or it would, if the verb for “shake” was future-tense; it’s actually present-tense, meaning we’re back to square one regarding the timing (present or future) of the fulfillment of the “promise” relative to “now” (G3568, which actually is in the Greek text). But note the last part of verse 27: “so that those things which are not shaken may remain.” The verb for “may remain” is in the subjunctive mood, indicating that “remaining” is only a potential thing for “those things”–which would suggest that the “shaking” action was still future.

So now let’s consider which “promise” is being referred to here, to see whether it can shed any additional light on this. Nearly all commentators on Hebrews drop the ball by the time they reach this step: at most, they acknowledge that verse 26c is paraphrasing Haggai 2:6–and then neglect to discuss the fuller context the Haggai quote was taken from! In fact, while the phrase “Yet once more” only appears in verse 6, the earth and heaven shaking is mentioned in verses 6 and 21. So let’s consider the contexts of both verses; since the author of Hebrews quoted just about exclusively from the Septuagint, that’s the version of the OT we should consult for cross-references with Hebrews.

In the seventh month, on the twenty-first day of the month, the Lord spoke by Aggæus the prophet, saying, Speak now to Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, of the tribe of Juda, and to Jesus the son of Josedec, the high priest, and to all the remnant of the people, saying,

Who is there of you that saw this house in her former glory? and how do ye now look upon it, as it were nothing [literally, “as if existing not”] before your eyes? Yet now be strong, O Zorobabel, saith the Lord; and strengthen thyself, O Jesus the high priest, the son of Josedec; and let all the people of the land strengthen themselves, saith the Lord, and work, for I am with you, saith the Lord Almighty; and my Spirit remains in the midst of you; be of good courage.

For thus saith the Lord Almighty; Yet once I will shake [future indicative] the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake [future indicative] all nations, and the choice portions [or, “the favorites”; note that this phrase is neuter in the Greek, while “chosen ones” would require it to be masculine] of all the nations shall come [future indicative]: and I will fill [future indicative] this house with glory, saith the Lord Almighty. Mine is the silver, and mine the gold, saith the Lord Almighty. For the glory of this house shall be [future indicative] great, the latter more than the former [literally, “the last beyond the first”; the Greek words are superlatives, not comparatives], saith the Lord Almighty: and in this place will I give [future indicative] peace, saith the Lord Almighty, even peace of soul for a possession [literally, “soul unto preservation”] to every one that builds, to raise up this temple. …

And the word of the Lord came the second time to Aggæus the prophet, on the four and twentieth day of the month, saying, Speak to Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, of the tribe of Juda, saying, I shake [present indicative] the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will overthrow [future indicative] the thrones of kings, and I will destroy [future indicative] the power of the kings of the nations; and I will overthrow [future indicative] chariots and riders; and the horses and their riders shall come down [future indicative], every one by the sword striving against his brother. In that day [literally, “In the day, that very one”; Brenton didn’t do justice to G1565, about which Thayer says the following for this situation: “equivalent to the forcibly uttered German der (that one etc.), in which sense it serves to recall and lay stress upon nouns just before used” {Scroll to entry 1.c. under “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”. Italics and boldface in original.}], saith the Lord Almighty, I will take [future indicative] thee, O Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, my servant, saith the Lord, and will make [literally, “and I will set”; future indicative] thee as a seal [or “a signet ring”]: for I have chosen thee, saith the Lord Almighty. (Haggai 2:1-9, 20-23 BLXX, underlining and boldface added)

God saw that the people who’d seen the first temple when it was standing were disappointed that the second one would be nowhere near as glorious (having a smaller foundation, for starters). In fact, while Herod’s expansions to the second temple were massive, the end result evidently wasn’t as elaborate or glorious as Solomon’s temple had been in its original state (see 1 Kings 14:25-27): when the Byzantine emperor Justinian I walked into his Hagia Sophia for the first time upon its completion in A.D. 537, he expressed his awe at its magnificence by saying “Νενίκηκά σε Σολομών” (“Solomon [not Herod!], I have surpassed thee”)! So feel free to look up photos of the Hagia Sophia online to get a feel for the level of beauty we’re talking about here!

This should give you some insight into just how big a deal it was when God said that sometime after the construction of the second temple (per the future tense of all the verbs involved and the fact that the second temple was currently under construction at the time this prophecy was given), once God shakes the heaven (or sky), earth, sea, dry places, and all the nations (the first instance of “nations” in verse 7 has a definite article attached to it, just like the second), everyone who helped raise up Jerusalem’s second temple would get to enjoy peace at a “last” temple that was even more glorious than the “first” — the “first” obviously being Solomon’s temple. God went on to tell Zerubbabel that He would set him as a seal or signet ring (metaphorically, of course) in the same day that the “shaking” would occur. All of these people were long dead by the time Hebrews was written (and by the time Herod’s expansions to the second temple even began, ruling out the idea that Herod’s temple was the “last” one that they would get to enjoy peace at), so the only way God can make good on His promises to these people is if they’ll get to enjoy these promises upon being resurrected. Since these people weren’t yet resurrected at the time the letter to the Hebrews was written, this conclusively tells us that the faithful “receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken” is something still future from when Hebrews was written!

Lest preterists claim these passages were (or amillennialists claim they will be) fulfilled allegorically in the second destruction of Jerusalem (or the supposed annihilation of the physical universe), not only is this interpretation ruled out by the statement in verse 9 that “in this place [which must refer to a physical temple on the physical land where Jerusalem’s second temple sat, per the historical context of Haggai’s ministry] will I give peace [a statement blatantly incompatible with Jerusalem’s second destruction!]”, and the claims in verse 7 that the “chosen things” of all the nations will come to the temple, and in verse 8 that the “silver” and “gold” will belong to God (implying that material substances will still exist at the time of this prophecy’s fulfillment), but also note that Hebrews 12:27 mentions that “this word, ‘Yet once more’, signifieth the transposition of those things that are shaken, as of those which have been constructed, so that those things which are not shaken may remain.” (As normally translated with “removing”, this verse is consistent with the “heavenly destiny” concept held to by amillennialists and dispensationalists; but the literal rendering I give here clearly speaks of a swap or exchange, rather than an annihilation.) Also note the phrase “those which have been constructed”, which harks back to a statement even earlier in the background context of Haggai’s prophecy:

And the Lord stirred up the spirit of Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, of the tribe of Juda, and the spirit of Jesus the son of Josedec, the high priest, and the spirit of the remnant of all the people; and they went in, and wrought [literally, “and were making works”; the boldfaced phrase was translated from the imperfect active indicative 3^rd-person plural form of G4160, the same verb for “of those which have been constructed” in Hebrews 12:27] in the house of the Lord Almighty their God (Haggai 1:14 BLXX, boldface and underlining added)

However, there’s one clarification I should make here: these promises in Haggai and Hebrews are referring to the temple described by Ezekiel, and not the one mentioned in Revelation 11. The most straightforward giveaway is the fact that Revelation 11:2 implies that the temple being referred to there exists at a time when only a small fraction of the Temple Mount is under Israelite control, and the rest is under Gentile control; a temple that occupies only a small fraction of the site where Solomon’s Temple used to stand can’t possibly compete with it in terms of splendor! However, the Temple Mount was also entirely under Israelite control when Herod’s Temple was still standing, so the temple mentioned in Revelation 11 can’t be identified with that one, either. Likewise, the temple in Heaven that the earthly ones are supposed to be copies of (Hebrews 8:5, 9:24) obviously isn’t mostly under Israelite or Gentile control, but totally under divine control. Hence, the temple mentioned in Revelation 11 is a totally distinct temple from all others mentioned in Scripture! I hold that it’s an interim tabernacle/temple (remember, both were referred to with the same Hebrew and Greek words) that Israelites will worship at during the first half of the apocalypse, that the Antichrist will occupy (and possibly expand) during the second half of the apocalypse, and that will ultimately be replaced with Ezekiel’s Temple (the “last” referred to in Haggai 2:9 LXX) when Christ’s Kingdom arrives in its fullest form.

Ironically, then, a passage that preterists use to claim there will never be another physical tabernacle/temple of YHWH standing in Jerusalem actually leads to the conclusion that there will be two more!

Would Sacrifices At A Future Temple Be Pointless?

Another argument that amillennialists (preterist or otherwise) offer against any future temple(s) in Jerusalem is, to quote the guy whose discussion with me was quoted and paraphrased at the beginning of this post, “What purpose could that possibly serve?” The idea is that if Jesus’ sacrifice atones for all sins, past, present, and future (which it does), then offering animal sacrifices would serve no purpose because they wouldn’t be atoning for anything. However, this argument hinges on a misunderstanding of the purpose of animal sacrifices. I remember being taught (and even teaching others) that the blood sacrifices that were offered before Jesus came were meant to “cover” sins until he came, and that’s why sacrifices aren’t needed anymore. And while I still teach that such sacrifices aren’t necessary for Christians (who’ve accepted the atonement that was brought about by Jesus’ sacrifice), the idea that such sacrifices were meant to “cover sins” isn’t the whole truth. They were also intended to remind those offering them of how serious sin is and the sacrifice that could atone for sins. Hence, while such sacrifices offered before Jesus came, going all the way back to the Adamic Covenant (Genesis 3:21; 4:3-4), were meant to prophetically point forward to Jesus’ crucifixion, such sacrifices offered after Jesus came (e.g., Acts 21:20-27, cf. Numbers 6:1-21 & Acts 18:18; note that this shows Paul had no problem with offering sacrifices at the temple even after Jesus had already atoned for his sins!) are meant to memorially point back to Jesus’ crucifixion. Warner summarized the main rebuttal to this idea when debating Samuel Frost (who was a full preterist at the time) regarding the prophecies in Ezekiel 40-48:

His opposition to future sacrifices being “memorial” is based solely on the fact that Ezekiel did not say they would be “memorial.” Frost writes, “Let it be known that I will not accept a statement that they are ‘memorial’ without full and scriptural warrant to that effect.  Second, I want to hear how Warner deals with why they must be ‘memorial.’  Obviously, if these sacrifices are NOT memorials, then we have blood-atoning sacrifices being offered AFTER the one time sacrifice of Christ.  Hopefully, Warner realizes that this is a massive contradiction of Scripture.” {Italics by Warner. All caps by Frost.}

The representative proof-text for the idea that Ezekiel 40-48 has already been fulfilled allegorically is Ezekiel 45:17:

“Then it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel.” (NKJV, underlining added)

The underlined phrase sure seems to be implying that the offerings are for atonement purposes, doesn’t it? Indeed, the word “atonement” occurs 4 more times in the NKJV of these 9 chapters (Ezekiel 43:20,26, 45:15,20). Perhaps you can now see why Frost said he “will not accept a statement that they are ‘memorial’ without full and scriptural warrant to that effect.” Well, if he insists…

It’s instructive in this regard to consider two other passages germane to this topic. First up:

Moses then said to Aaron, “Come near to the altar and offer [literally, “and make”] your sin offering and your burnt offering, so that you may make atonement for yourself and for the people; then make the offering for [literally, “offering of”; no preposition on “the people”] the people, so that you may [literally, “people; you should”; the verb for “make atonement” is imperative] make atonement for [or “on behalf of”] them, just as the LORD has commanded.” (Leviticus 9:7 2020 NASB, underlining added)

Note that YHWH commanded Aaron to “make atonement on behalf of” the people of Israel by means of “offering”. This command (and similar ones throughout the Pentateuch) sets the Biblical precedent for how the Exilic Jews who Ezekiel originally prophesied to would’ve understood “mak[ing] atonement” in Ezekiel 43 & 45. At first glance, this suggests that the Levitical sacrificial system (and by implication, the sacrificial system laid out in the closing chapters of Ezekiel) was intended to “atone” for the sins of Israelites in the same way that Jesus’ crucifixion has “atoned” for the sins of those who choose to accept it. Frost certainly seemed to think so at the time of his debate with Warner, and as far as I’m aware, this is the understanding most of Christendom has regarding the Levitical sacrifices:

Atonement was needed.  The Law provided for it.  The blood of bulls and goats took away sins.  But, guess what.  The sins came back.  And they would have to offer more bulls and goats.  Then sins were forgiven and atoned for.  Then, guess what, sins came back.  They would have to offer more bulls and goats.  Sins were forgiven.  Then, guess what?  Sins cam [sic] back….and on and on and on it went.  Such a system could not “perfect” the sinner.  Such a system showed them that for sins to be forgiven under it, then this system must go on forever.  This is clearly contrasted with the “once and for all” sacrifice of Jesus Himself. {Underlining and content in brackets mine.}

However, the opening section of Hebrews 10 gives us Apostolic revelation that directly contradicts this understanding, and then some:

1 For the law having a shadow of the coming good things — not the very image of the matters, every year, [literally, “of the deeds according to a year”; a reference to the annual Levitical feasts, some of which the closing chapters of Ezekiel mention being celebrated, although the Day of Atonement is significantly absent] by the same [or “with those very”] sacrifices that they offer continually [literally, “that they are offering unto the carry-through”], is never able [literally, “has power in itself not even at one time”] to make perfect those coming near, 2 since, would they not have ceased to be offered [literally, “ceased being offered”], because of those serving having no more conscience of sins, having once been purified [literally, “offered, since not even one serving, once having been cleansed, would still possess conscience of sins”]? 3 but in those sacrifices is a remembrance [literally, “But in those is a recollection”] of sins every [literally, “according to a”] year [on the Day of Atonement], 4 for it is impossible for [literally, “for incapable is”] blood of bulls and goats to take away [literally, “to be taking away”; the verb is present active infinitive] sins.

5 Wherefore, coming into the world [order/system; kosmos], he saith [in Psalm 40:6-8 LXX], ‘Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not will [or “wish”, or “prefer”; G2309], and [literally, “but”] a body Thou didst prepare for me [literally, “body You fit to me”; note the substantial disagreement with the Masoretic Text, which has “ears You have opened/pierced (literally, “dug”) for me” instead of “but a body You fit to me”–even many Septuagint manuscripts have “ears” instead of “a body”!], 6 in burnt-offerings [literally, “whole burnt offerings” with no preposition; ὁλοκαύτωμα (holokautōma, G3646), as opposed to offerings where only parts are burnt; the alternate form holokauston (properly meaning “a thing wholly burnt”) gave rise to the English word “holocaust”], and concerning sin-offerings [or “and on behalf of sin”], Thou didst not delight [or, “You did not favor”; the verb is G2106], 7 then [literally, “at that time”] I said, Lo [or “Behold”], I come, (in [literally, “I have arrived; in”; the Greek sentence structure suggests that the parentheses aren’t necessary] a volume [or “roll”] of the [literally, “of a”; no definite article] book it hath been written concerning me,) to do, O God, Thy will [literally, “concerning me, concerning the one to do, O God, the will (or “wish”, or “pleasure”) of Yours.”];’ 8 saying [literally, “That saying”] above — ‘Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings [literally, “and whole burnt offerings”], and concerning sin-offering [literally, “concerning sin”] Thou didst not will [or “wish”, or “prefer”], nor delight in [literally, “nor did you favor”],’ — which [or “such things as”] according to the law [NA28 has “according to law”, without a definite article] are offered [literally, “are being offered”; the verb is present passive indicative 3^rd-person plural] — 9 then he said [literally, “at that time he has said”], ‘Lo, I come to do, O God, Thy will [literally, “Behold, I have arrived… concerning the one to do, O God, (NA28 omits “O God,”) the will (or “wish” or “pleasure”) of Yours”];’ he doth take away [literally, “he abolishes”; present tense] the first that [literally, “so that”] the second he may establish [or “he may make firm”; G2476]; 10 in [or “by”] the which [literally, “which”; no definite article] will we are [TR adds “the ones” here; NA28 omits it] having been sanctified [or “having been set apart”; perfect passive participle] through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [literally, “upon one occasion” {Scroll to “Strong’s Definitions”}],

11 and every priest, indeed, hath stood daily [literally, “has stood according to the Day (of Atonement and the instructions associated with it; cf. verses 1 & 3)”] serving, and the same sacrifices [“the same” refers to the sacrifices, not the priest; “priest” is nominative masculine singular, but “the same” and “sacrifices” are both accusative feminine plural] many times offering [literally, “bearing towards”; this participle is nominative singular masculine, referring to the priest again], that [literally, “which”; nominative plural feminine, referring to the sacrifices again while making them the subject of the following phrase] are never able [literally, “not even at one time have power in themselves”] to take away [literally, “to remove from all around”] sins. 12 And [literally, “But”] He, for sin one sacrifice having offered [literally, “he offered one sacrifice over sins”] — to the end, [literally, “unto the carry-through”] did sit down on [better, “at”] the right hand of God, — 13 as to the rest [literally, “the remainder”], expecting [or “awaiting”] till He may place his enemies as his footstool [literally, “till the enemies of his may be made a footstool of the feet of his”], 14 for by one offering he hath perfected to the end [literally, “completed unto the carry-through”] those sanctified [or “the ones being set apart”; present passive participle]; (Hebrews 10:1-14 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

While I’ve rendered the Greek phrase εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς (wrongly rendered “for all time”, “continually”, or “forever” in most English translations) in a wooden-literal fashion as “unto the carry-through”, the LGV of Hebrews 10 {scroll to page 23 in the PDF} offers the thought-for-thought rendering “for the duration”. In light of verses 12 & 13, this phrase in Hebrews 10 should be understood as “until the time when God carries out the remainder of the promises He made to His son in Psalm 110”. Note that Christ being “High Priest for the age according to the Melchizedek arrangement” (Hebrews 5:6c LGV, boldface added; see also YLT) in fulfillment of Psalm 110:4 is something that’s going on at present, while Christ’s “throne, O God, is for the age of the age” (Hebrews 1:8b LGV, boldface added; see also YLT), referring to a future time when Psalm 110:2-3,5-7 will all be fulfilled. In the meantime, Christ is at His Father’s right side, as stated in Psalm 110:1. It’s also significant that the only other occurrence of the word διηνεκὲς in the entire Bible is in the same book’s description of Melchizedek, when it mentions that he “doth remain a priest continually [εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς]” (Hebrews 7:3c YLT, boldface added); remember, the full passage makes it clear that Melchizedek was a theophany–a pre-incarnate appearance of the Son of God!

Many of the underlined phrases make it blatantly clear that animal sacrifices never have been and never will be able to take away sins! Hence, not a single sacrifice made in the OT (under the Mosaic Law or otherwise) was actually for the purpose of taking away sins (so, the same would go for any sacrifices made in Christ’s Kingdom)! So what’s the deal with the way God talks about such sacrifices to “make atonement” in the OT passages mentioned above? I suspect that a large part of the problem lies in the fact that theologians refer to Jesus’ crucifixion as “the substitutionary atonement”, yet continue to accept translations that use the word “atone” with reference to OT sacrifices. This creates a situation that’s ripe for equivocation fallacies.

In that vein, you undoubtedly noticed while reading my remarks in brackets on Hebrews 10:1-14 that several key Greek words in this passage, like G2309, G2106, & G2476, have more than one possible meaning depending on the context. In each case, I’ve underlined the potential sense that creates the fewest apparent conflicts with the rest of Scripture (e.g., I chose “favor” as the most likely intended meaning for G2106, on the grounds that the OT often speaks of God taking pleasure in sacrifices, but it’s clear from contrasting the Edenic & Adamic Covenants that God never wanted to institute such sacrifices for humanity in the first place — rather, His preference was for the sacrifice of His son because it actually could take away sins — as it’s well been said, “The cross wasn’t God’s ‘Plan B’”; hence, rendering these instances of G2106 as “favor” instead of “delight” makes the overall statements more consistent with the rest of Scripture).

At the core of the overarching issue here is כָּפַר (kaphar; H3722), the Hebrew word for “make atonement” in all of the OT passages mentioned above. It turns out that this word, like many other key terms throughout the Bible, is defined on the first occasion it’s used: “Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it [וְכָפַרְתָּ; vᵊkhāphartā] inside and outside with pitch [בַּכֹּפֶר; bakōpher].” (Genesis 6:14 NKJV, boldface added) The word kaphar was originally a verb meaning to “cover” or “cover over”. The word for “pitch” here, כֹּפֶר (kōpher; H3724), is the noun form of kaphar, and came to be used in the post-Flood world for bitumen specifically (although, contrary to the claims of critics who think it’s problematic that most if not all petroleum would’ve been formed during the Flood, the pitch Noah used was more likely resin-based). Hence, kaphar carries the connotation of coating over something else, especially to the point where what’s underneath is no longer exposed. Remember how I said at the start of this section that the sacrifices were meant to cover sins until Jesus came? Now you know that that understanding comes straight from Biblical precedent!

Furthermore, we just saw in Hebrews 10:1-4 that, while those sacrifices never were (and never will be) meant to perfect those offering them, they were meant to remind those offering them of their sins. And since the Pentateuch required one to offer the very best lamb, bull, etc. of their stock, this trade-off would hurt, underscoring the seriousness of the situation. While the sacrifices laid out in the closing chapters of Ezekiel won’t be made according to the Mosaic Law, this requirement will carry over to those (e.g., just look at how many times the phrase “without blemish” appears in these chapters). Between the facts that some people will still be in mortal bodies after Jesus’ return (Matthew 22:1-14; Luke 14:15-24; Isaiah 11:8 cf. Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25, & 1 Corinthians 15:51-54) and capable of rebelling against him (Psalm 2:9 LXX; Matthew 22:11-13; Revelation 2:27, 12:5, & 19:15), yet the Curse due to the Fall of Man will be removed once Jesus returns (per 2 Peter 3:10-13, cf. 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 & Romans 8:18-23; see Appendix D of my upcoming book for a fuller explanation) — meaning the tangible, long-term, cumulative effects of sin will be a thing of the past — those still-mortal people who haven’t yet been perfected are going to need some frequent, tangible reminders of just how serious sin is! I hold that the sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel will serve this role–and that many Christians will be among those (I suspect they’ll even take turns, similar to what we see in 1 Chronicles 24:1-19⁵) in all the nations throughout Christ’s Kingdom offering the sacrifices on behalf of their still-mortal brethren (Peter alluded to this in 1 Peter 2:9 when he called his readers “a royal priesthood” — KJV, boldface added).

Some remarks Warner made during his debate with Frost give us a nice little bow with which to wrap up the loose ends of this package:

It should surprise no one that Ezekiel’s vision used similar terminology [to the Pentateuch] for the future sacrifices, particularly since the “mystery” of the Gospel had not yet been revealed, and the symbolic nature of all animal sacrifices was not yet clearly understood (1 Pet. 1:10-12). If we are to be consistent, and allow the New Testament to interpret the Old, then all of the sacrifices in the Old Testament, whether found in historical narrative or prophecy, should be seen as symbolic in significance but literally carried out by the worshippers.… Therefore, any future sacrifices must be understood in light of the fact that all such sacrifices are signs [pointing to Christ] (symbolic) even though they are literally offered by spilling real blood. {Scroll to “Wrong Presupposition #1 – Animal Sacrifices Atoned for Sin”. Boldface and content in parentheses in original. Content in brackets mine.}

So there you have it: literal offering of the sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel wouldn’t be pointless.

Individual Salvation Versus National Restoration

As for the sacrifices offered at the temple mentioned in Revelation 11 (which would be included under the phrase “those very sacrifices that they are offering unto the carry-through” in Hebrews 10:1b, since “the carry-through” will begin at Jesus’ return), it’s also important to distinguish God’s plan for people’s salvation on the individual level from His plan for Israel’s restoration on the national level. Please don’t confuse this with the dispensationalist dichotomy between God’s supposed plan for Israel and His supposed plan for “the Church”. Warner’s summary of the presuppositions that cause amillenialists and dispensationalists to misinterpret Hebrews is helpful in explaining the difference:

While Dispensationalists admit the truth of a future Messianic Kingdom, their theology severs Jewish Christians of this dispensation from the hope of Israel and the Patriarchs. Dispensationalists look at Hebrews through a colored lens that blocks out any connection between the Jewish believer and his Jewish heritage. In their thinking, Jewish believers have been severed from their connection to “Israel” and are now part of the “Church.” The Jewish Christian, in dispensational theology, has the same “heavenly hope” as the Gentile believer is alleged to have. In seeking to maintain their dichotomy between God’s plan for Israel and His plan for the Church, they have effectively turned the Jewish Christian into a Gentile, and severed him from the hope of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David.
Those who embrace Covenant Theology (Amillennialists, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant), have completely dismissed the Jewish hope of a Messianic Kingdom on earth as a false hope. They think the Jews wrongly took the Old Testament prophecies literally. Like Dispensationalists, they think the hope of the Jewish Christian is the same celestial hope they allege for Gentile Christians. Neither Dispensationalists nor Amillennialists can afford to admit that the Jewish Christian’s hope is the literal fulfillment of Israel’s covenants, and the promised Messianic Kingdom on earth, without fatally undermining their entire systems.
{Scroll to “The Failure of Modern Theological Systems” near the bottom of p. 1 in the PDF.}

In contrast to the false dichotomy presented in the first paragraph quoted here, I hold that Israelite Christians can (once the opportunity arises) participate in Israel’s national restoration (under the terms laid out in Deuteronomy 30, as pointed out earlier), while understanding that the sacrifices they’re offering at that time aren’t for the purpose of their individual salvation (just as we saw above with the sacrifices Paul and his companions offered at the completion of their Nazirite vows in Acts 21). It’s just that most Israelites during the apocalypse won’t understand this (at least initially; I suspect that the Two Witnesses will explain this to them at some point) because they’ll reject the NT explanation of what blood sacrifices are actually for (given in the Hebrews 10 passage discussed above). Until they understand this (on the individual level), their offering sacrifices at a third temple to break the curse of the Law under the provisions in Deuteronomy 30 will be purely a matter of displaying obedience to what they DO understand about God and His ways. As an apologist who puts great emphasis on knowing the “why” behind the “what”, I must admit that I often fail to appreciate the fact that, compared to me, most people throughout history have obeyed God with hardly any understanding of the “why”s! Essentially, the Israelites who start worshiping at the third temple at the start of Daniel’s 70^th “seven” will be the last great example of people who have to do so before Jesus returns.

Incidentally, this brings out a powerful way to counter those who deny that the OT Law is still in effect at all. Ask them “Are Israelites who haven’t entered into the New Covenant still under the curse of the Old Law?” If they say “no”, direct them to Galatians 3:10 (“For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.”” — 1995 NASB) before making the next point. If they say “yes”, then they’ve just admitted that the Law itself is still in effect; otherwise, its curses would be powerless! And if the curses for breaking the Law are still in effect, then so are the blessings for starting to keep it again! (Also notice that a careful reading of the blessings, curses, and restoration terms laid out in Deuteronomy 28 & 30 shows that they were all intended on the national level, not the individual level; this is consistent with obedience to these terms not being for the purpose of individual salvation.)

It’s worth adding that this kind of distinction isn’t unique to the issue of sacrifices. The New Testament writers often maintained a similar distinction between individual Christians and the collective of all believers, even if English translations have a track record of hiding it to some degree. For instance, John 3:16 has been subject to so much translational inertia (undoubtedly due to how famous the verse is) that it becomes almost unrecognizable when we translate it more accurately. For instance, the rendering in the 2020 NASB is pretty typical of English translations: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.” (boldface added) But the LGV {scroll to p. 11 in the PDF} bypasses all the translational inertia with the following rendering: “For this is how God loved the world, inasmuch as He gave His Only-Begotten Son so that the whole [entity] believing unto Him should not be destroyed, but may have age-enduring life.” (boldface added) Note well that this promise, which way too many evangelists throw out wantonly as if it applies on the individual level for those who believe at any point in time, was actually meant on the collective level for those who possess ongoing belief. I think it goes without saying that this has severe implications for how evangelists should operate!

Pragmatic Concerns Regarding a Future Temple

Necessary Implements Missing?

That pastor also said in more than one subsequent gathering that the gold and silver vessels that were brought back from Babylon for the construction of the second temple and were originally used in the first temple (Ezra 1:7-11) were plundered when Titus destroyed Jerusalem. The Arch of Titus even lists them, and nobody knows what happened to them after that. He then stated that Jerusalem can’t have a third temple without them, and concluded that “this whole idea about a third temple in Jerusalem is a myth” (emphasis his).

However, this is simply a non-sequitur conclusion: nowhere does the Bible say that the same vessels must be used in all iterations of the temple! The same vessels from the first temple being used in the second was simply a matter of convenience: why expend effort making new ones when the old ones were still available and in working order (as Belshazzar demonstrated to his own regret in Daniel 5:2-4,22-28,30–just a few months earlier {HIDMF, p. 659-661})? In fact, 1 Kings 7:48-8:4 makes it clear that only a fraction of the vessels used in the first temple had also been used in the tabernacle it replaced! Clearly, God didn’t have a problem with Solomon making new vessels even while using the old ones–meaning that, if the vessels Titus plundered ever do turn up in working order, they and the new ones that have already been produced could be used alongside each other. How cool would that be: to have vessels from all eras of Israelite tabernacle/temple worship in use simultaneously?!

Now that I think about it, that pastor’s emphatic claim that any possibility of a third temple is a “myth” is making me start to wonder why he so desperately wants to deprive the nation of Israel of what God has promised them multiple times throughout the OT and reaffirmed in the NT–as I’ve shown throughout this article. Come to think of it, during our initial discussion on this topic (the one referred to at the start of this post) he did seem like he was trying to hold back an angry response when I pointed out that antisemitism has historically been baked into and/or justified with amillennialist arguments. But I’ll refrain from suggesting a concrete reason and let God judge his heart on this one, since I prefer to get sufficient evidence before making accusations about someone.

No Records, No Priesthood?

That pastor also insists that because all written records of Jewish genealogies perished when the Second Temple was destroyed, there’s no possibility of modern Levites being able to prove that they’re Levites, so there’s no possibility of a third temple. Ezra 2:62 sure seems to imply that on the surface, but the overall argument overlooks the fact that we now have an alternative method to establish ancestry: genetics.

Mainstream genetics has produced confusion by trying to link Jews (especially Cohanim, who claim descent from Aaron) with the Y-chromosome haplogroup J-P58, which shows up in over 98% of Cohanim, but revealed multiple patriarchal lines under closer examination. Nathaniel Jeanson of Answers in Genesis has pointed out that not only is this an Indo-European haplotype, not a Semitic one, but the studies in question assumed the old-earth timescale; when the results are re-analyzed according to a 4,500-year timescale, this haplogroup doesn’t show up until the A.D. era. After analyzing the overall Y-chromosome evidence further, Jeanson concluded that haplogroup T is the most likely candidate, with haplogroup L (which would’ve branched off from T sometime between 2200 & 1900 B.C., according to the timescale Jeanson uses) possibly representing the 10 northern tribes or descendants of Esau. {“Traced: Human DNA’s Big Surprise”. Jeanson, Nathaniel T. 2021. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. 162-181.}

However, my chronology implies that Jeanson didn’t compress the timescale quite enough (I hold that Abraham was born in 1965/4 B.C.), and even scaling his timeline would place the endpoint of the T-L split’s date range at 1842 B.C.⁶, when Isaac would’ve been 23 years old–at which point Sarah would’ve still been alive (Genesis 23:1 tells us she died at age 127, at which point Isaac would’ve been 37); since the waw-consecutive verbs in Genesis 24:67-25:2 imply that Abraham married his second wife Keturah and had children with her after Isaac married Rebekah, which occurred after Sarah’s death, this would rule out Abraham’s descendants through Keturah (or anyone later in Abraham’s line!) from representing the haplogroup L branch-off. As such, I personally find it more likely that a subclade of haplogroup T would represent the Israelites, and that the split represents an event slightly earlier in the Biblical narrative. (Terah’s family leaving Ur, perhaps? This would explain why the geographic spread of L is predominantly southern, central, and southwest Asia. Indeed, modern Iraq, where Ur was, features decent concentrations of T and L.) Jeanson does the math to determine how many generations down from Noah these splits occurred with the assumption of 3 Y-chromosome mutations per generation, but admits that published estimates range from 3 to 5; taking a rate closer to 4 or 5 per generation would line the results up better with what I’ve brought to bear in this paragraph–in fact, it places the T-L branch-off (i.e., the branch-off from other major Semitic haplogroups) in the time of Salah or Eber, and the T-L split around the time of Nahor or Terah (also note how much older Terah was than his ancestors when begetting the children named–in fact, cross-referencing Genesis 11:32 & 12:4 implies that Terah was 130 when he begat Abraham; this situation is ripe for more Y-chromosome mutations in a single generation than usual, perhaps explaining how the split from L happened in the first place)!

Regardless, even that explanation puts a little too much weight on the human side of the equation. God knows who’s a legitimate Israelite, even if we don’t. The 12,000 Israelites from each tribe being sealed in Revelation 7 make it clear that He’s keeping track. Besides, we saw at the start of this post that modern Israelis who aren’t descended from ancient Israelites are the exception, not the rule; so there will certainly be enough legitimate Israelites present in the land of Israel for God to scrounge together 12,000 from each tribe, regardless of whether we’ll be able to tell them apart (heck, there’s probably already enough for God to do so)!

Worst-case scenario, there will still be a couple of “old-fashioned ways” for us humans to determine who is legitimate for temple service even if you reject oral tradition and genetics. If someone they thought was eligible for High Priest dies when entering the Holy of Holies in the third temple on its first Day of Atonement, then they’ll know he wasn’t legit; they could just keep letting candidates go through the process (Leviticus 16) until one of them lives, and then they’ll know he’s eligible to be High Priest! Likewise, Revelation 11:19 tells us the Ark of the Covenant will be in heaven when Jesus returns, suggesting it will have been found sometime beforehand. Since only legitimate Levites can carry the Ark and live (1 Chronicles 15:2-15), we can just have purported Levites try to carry it out of wherever it’s discovered; any who don’t die when touching it are legit (indeed, if a non-Levite archaeologist dies just by touching it while discovering it, that should be our first clue that it really is the Ark of the Covenant)!

Stay Tuned!

Remember, I plan on updating this post as more passages and counterarguments come to my attention. But I already spent over 86 hours of my life working on this post before even uploading it in early March of 2025 (and then spent another week or two of my free time importing it into WordPress and formatting it to enhance your reading experience, plus adding a couple points I hadn’t thought of beforehand), so I think this is a good place to call it quits for now.

---

1. This is a major reason why I personally think Luke was acting as a scribe for Paul when writing Hebrews. The theology is distinctly that of Paul, but the vocabulary is on par with what we see in Luke & Acts. A similar phenomenon can be seen between 1 & 2 Peter: 1 Peter 5:12 identifies Silvanus as the scribe who wrote the epistle for Peter, while no scribe is named in 2 Peter. Skeptics have tried to claim that the poorer writing style of 2 Peter compared to 1 Peter shows that it was a forgery written long after 1 Peter, but the more likely explanation {scroll to Footnote 10} is that Silvanus was a professional scribe who knew how to word things well, while Peter (who was apparently one of those people who’s much better at speaking than at writing) wrote 2 Peter himself to make his farewell address more personal and heartfelt. ↩︎
2. In verse 1, the word for “root” is plural in the MT, but singular in the LXX, just like it is in verse 10. Also, where Paul uses ἐλπιοῦσιν (“they will hope”) in Romans 15:12c (exactly the same inflection used in Isaiah 11:10b LXX), the MT has יִדְרֹ֑שׁוּ (“they will seek with inquiry”). This tells us the Septuagint should be given priority over the Masoretic Text here; this will be important in that exposition I write on Isaiah 11:1-16. ↩︎
3. Habermas’ answer went as follows: “Well, I can give you several solid reasons. First, Paul introduces it with the words received and delivered, which are technical rabbinic terms indicating he’s passing along holy tradition.… Second, the text’s parallelism and stylized content indicate it’s a creed. Third, the original text uses Cephas for Peter, which is his Aramaic name. In fact, the Aramaic itself could indicate a very early origin. Fourth, the creed uses several other primitive phrases that Paul would not customarily use, like ‘the Twelve,’ ‘the third day,’ ‘he was raised,’ and others. Fifth, the use of certain words is similar to Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew means of narration.… Should I go on?” {Ibid.} ↩︎
4. The phrase “after six days” in Matthew 17:1 & Mark 9:2 is probably referring to days of the week, implying that this vision occurred on the Sabbath. Most expositors explain the difference as inclusive versus exclusive reckoning, which would actually make less sense here because each author uses the opposite numbers you’d expect from this scenario! Jews (like Matthew & Mark) used inclusive reckoning, while Gentiles (like Luke) tended to use exclusive reckoning; so with this explanation, you’d expect Matthew & Mark to say “eight days” (including the day of Jesus’ prediction and the day of its fulfillment) and Luke to say “six days” (including only the full days between the prediction and its fulfillment). ↩︎
5. Also compare Luke 1:5 with 1 Chronicles 24:10, which tells us that John the Baptist’s father Zacharias was part of the eighth course. Each course served a week at a time, from one Sabbath to the next, twice a year. With the first course serving for the first full week of Nisan and the second one serving up to Nisan 14, at which point all courses would serve together during Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, with the third course serving the first full week after that (the second week of the countdown to Pentecost), the eighth course would be serving during the seventh and final week of the countdown to Pentecost. This tells us the events of Luke 1:8-23a occurred during the week just before Pentecost of 5 B.C., which also coincides nicely with Elizabeth becoming pregnant about a month later (in June on the Gregorian Calendar; note the phrase “After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived” in verse 24a ESV, implying a decent amount of time elapsed between Zacharias’ return and John’s conception), Mary becoming pregnant with Jesus during the Hanukkah season (late December) of 5 B.C. when Elizabeth was six months along (verse 36), and Jesus being born on Tishri 1 of 4 B.C. (September 22, 4 B.C. on the Julian Calendar; Revelation 12:1 gives astronomical data that fits Tishri 1: the sun being in the same part of the sky as the constellation Virgo – implying the month is September – and the moon being beneath Virgo – and thus in the same part of the sky as the sun, implying a new moon, the first day of a Hebrew month; note that verses 2 & 5 make it clear that this is referring to Jesus’ birth from the virgin Mary, and the dragon of verses 3-4 hoping to devour her child lines up with the constellation Hydra, which is right alongside Virgo; a diagram is available here). ↩︎
6. Jeanson assumes 4,500 years between when Noah had his 3 sons and when he wrote “Traced” (2021); this would place the birth of Japheth in 2480 B.C. However, my chronology has the Flood lasting from autumn 2314 B.C. to autumn 2313 B.C., Japheth being born in 2414 B.C. (Genesis 10:21 tells us Japheth was the eldest), Shem being born in 2411 B.C. (Genesis 11:10 tells us Shem turned 100 two years after the Flood), and Ham within a handful of years after that (Genesis 9:24 tells us Ham was Noah’s youngest son). This would place Japheth’s birth 4,434 years before 2021, not 4,500. This means that counting backward from A.D. 2021, each year by Jeanson’s scale would actually be 4434÷4500=0.9853333… years. So when Jeanson mentions “2200 B.C.”, my timescale would convert that to
   2414-((2480-2200)×(4434÷4500))=2138.106666…, or 2138 B.C. Likewise, the “1900 B.C.” Jeanson gives for the latter end of the range in which T & L branched off from each other would correspond to
   2414-((2480-1900)×(4434÷4500))=1842.506666…, or 1842 B.C. ↩︎