Israel and the Kingdom of God

The following is a brief interaction with several Christadelphian doctrines surrounding Israel and the kingdom of God.

#The hope of Israel

Christadelphians frequently resort to Paul’s “hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20) to justify their views on the kingdom of God. The kingdom, they claim, is a future political dominion centred in Jerusalem, full of redeemed ethnic Jews in the land of Canaan.

However, simply saying the words “the hope of Israel” does not import into them all the specifics of Christadelphian doctrine outlined in such formative works as Elpis Israel or Christ on Earth Again.

Consider this line of reasoning.

1. The gospel Paul preached was “the hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20).
2. The gospel Paul preached is detailed in the book of Galatians.
3. The book of Galatians says the gospel was preached to Abraham.
4. Therefore, “the hope of Israel” is the gospel preached to Abraham.

The question is, then, what was the gospel preached to Abraham?

“And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, proclaimed the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the nations will be blessed in you.’ So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer” (Galatians 3:8-9 LSB).

The gospel preached to Abraham was therefore the justification by faith which was a blessing to all nations. Paul does not mention a king in Jerusalem or the borders of Canaan or Ezekiel’s temple.

If Christadelphians are right about Paul’s “hope of Israel” then throughout the entirety of his writings he never once describes the central aspects of that hope. It could be claimed that one reference, Romans 11:26, refers to Jerusalem—but this, at best, is an allusion in passing. It never occupies the brunt of his teaching, even though his ministry was to the Gentiles. If the gospel message centres around a future government in Jerusalem and the inheritance of the land of Canaan, why does Paul’s gospel never mention it—even when writing to new Gentile converts?

The one time he does make an explicit theological point about Jerusalem, this is what he says:

“Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother” (Galatians 4:25-26 LSB).

This, of course, agrees with Jesus’ words that “an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father” (Jn. 4:21 LSB).

This, I believe, is a brief, cogent case for understanding “the hope of Israel” as nothing other than the gospel of the books of Romans and Galatians. That gospel centres around justification by faith as a blessing to all nations.

#The Abrahamic land promises

Since Christadelphian doctrine fixates greatly on the Abrahamic land promises, I will include a brief engagement here. A representative argument may be found in Robert Roberts’ Christ on Earth Again. The following, I believe, is an accurate summation of Roberts’ argument:

1. In the Old Testament, Abraham’s inheritance was the land of Canaan.
2. Galatians does not redefine the inheritance.
3. Galatians identifies Christ as Abraham’s promised seed.
4. Those belonging to Christ become Abraham’s promised seed.
5. Therefore Christ and those united to him are heirs of the same promised inheritance—the land of Canaan.

It is important that I first agree with Roberts in several places:

1. The promise to Abraham is not cancelled but fulfilled in the promised seed, Christ.
2. Believers inherit the promise to Abraham through union with Christ.
3. Christians believe in the final resurrection and that our ultimate hope is to live on a heavenly earth, not as disembodied souls in heaven.

It is just as important that I disagree in two crucial places.

First, Abraham was not just promised Canaan but the whole world.

“For the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he would be heir of the world…” (Romans 4:13 LSB).

To this agrees the book of Genesis:

“And you will be the father of a multitude of nations” (Genesis 17:4 LSB).

“In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed…” (Genesis 22:18 LSB).

While I grant that Canaan is included in the land promises—Christ will inherit Canaan, most surely—the New Testament focus is much grander and wider. Indeed, it seems that the primary reason for the Old Testament’s focus on Canaan is because it illustrates the token fulfilment of this worldwide promise through the nation of Israel (see Genesis 15:13-16).

Second, it is important that we not misinterpret Galatians 3 as being primarily concerned with a land inheritance. The inheritance Paul speaks of is much wider.

“…in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Galatians 3:14 LSB).

The promise received here is “the Spirit through faith.” Now, it is true that Christ poured out the Spirit so that all nations could be blessed and thus, by extension, fulfil the land promise. But in my experience, reception of the Spirit—which is Paul’s emphasis from v2 onwards—is almost entirely left out of any discussion of Galatians 3 by Christadelphians.

The upshot of these two problems is that the Christadelphian fixation on the Jews and Canaan—as if these in particular are the focus of the gospel—is unbiblical. Yes, the Jews will be saved; but so will the Gentiles in just the same way (Rom. 11:32). Yes, Abraham and his seed will inherit Canaan; but they will also inherit the whole world in just the same way (Rom. 4:13).

#James’s Amos quotation

Christadelphians have often argued that the rebuilding of the “tabernacle of David”, mentioned in Acts 15:16-17 (itself a quotation of Amos), demonstrates the necessity for a literal building, and thus a future kingdom centred on Israel.

However, the notion that “the tabernacle of David” awaits the future to be rebuilt is at odds with the text of Acts. Note how pointed James’s statement is.

“I will rebuild the fallen booth of David… so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord…” (Acts 15:16-17 LSB, emphasis added).

The rebuilding of David’s booth is a condition of the Gentiles seeking the Lord. The problem with the Christadelphian view is that, in placing the rebuilding of David’s booth in the future, it logically prohibits any Gentiles from seeking God until then, even if that is not its conscious intent.

James, to the contrary, is arguing for the present inclusion of the Gentiles, and thus, the present erection of David’s booth. To suppose he is pointing thousands of years in the future forces the text into the position of not supporting James’s argument anymore.

Moreover, the context of Amos seems to indicate that Amos 9:11 began to occur in the first century at the same time v8-10 began to occur. (NB: I say “began to” occur.) Amos is describing the New Covenant age—which explains v13-15: the New Covenant age will include these blessings.

To those who insist that the language “rebuilt, as in the days of old” requires a literal building, I ask the following, rather rhetorically:

Do you believe there will be a little booth in Jerusalem just as there was in 1 Chronicles 15? Will Christ literally excavate the ruins of David’s booth and rebuild those? I speak rhetorically, for to interpret the poetic language of Amos with wooden literality reduces it to comic nonsense.

The phrase “as in the days of old” refers to the fact of its being built not the type of timber David used. When someone says, for example, “I will sing Old MacDonald just like when I was two” they don’t intend to sing as poorly as a toddler.

#Restoring the kingdom to Israel

Christadelphians point to Acts 1:6 as further proof of the future kingdom of God, centred on Israel. However, I believe they have clearly misunderstood the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6. It is quite clearly a response to v3-5.

“…speaking about the things concerning the kingdom of God… He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father… So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, ‘Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?’” (Acts 1:3-4, 6 LSB).

There is a strong connection between the disciples “waiting” for the Holy Spirit and then effectively asking “is it now?” The text highlights this with the word “So.”

Allow me to emphasise the connection of thought:

1. Christ teaches them about the kingdom (v3).
2. That teaching included the outpouring of the Holy Spirit “not many days from now” (v4-5). (We know this because he says ‘you’ve already heard me talk about this’ in v4).
3. So the disciples naturally asked ‘is it now?’ (v6).
4. Christ reassures them they’ll receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon them (v7-8).
5. Then in Acts 2, the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost mirrors in almost every way the establishment of Israel’s kingdom at Mount Sinai, including the 3000 deaths/baptisms.

Now, if Israel’s kingdom began humbly at Sinai, why may Christ’s not begin humbly at Pentecost? The restoration of Israel’s kingdom is thus tied to the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost. That’s the inauguration. It’s textually unavoidable.