3. Introduction

I hope to show in this short paper why I think that mainstream Christian thought in the UK is wrong in its interpretation of the promises to Israel and her people, and in its eschatology. Many think that God has eliminated Israel from His blessings and so has turned to the Church. The Church has become arrogant (not my word but Paul's in Romans Chapter 11) and claims that the blessings declared in the Old Testament for Israel really were intended for the Church.

Some say that the Church has replaced Israel or that Israel really was the Church all along. This relies on a particular interpretation of who the "seed" is in the promises declared to Abraham. I believe that "seed" has a singular meaning as in Christ (Galatians ch 3 v 16), but also a pleural meaning in the natural offspring of Jacob. Today"s Christian thinking uses the singular meaning exclusively and sees all the promises pointing to Jesus, but without the objects of God's blessing, or at least simply the Church and the Church alone. All the Abrahamic references to "seed" in Genesis are singular. Which one Paul was referring to needs some care in exegesis. The singular use of "seed" is a Hebraism. When "seed" refers to the stars in the sky and sand grains on the sea shore, its meaning is obviously pleural even though in Hebrew grammar it is singular.

A careful reading of the Abraham narrative in Genesis chapters 12 to 22 indicates that the passage that Paul is referring to in Galatians is the promise in chapter 22 following the near sacrifice of Isaac. Note that the genetic descendents of Abraham would be numerous and successful, but there would be another seed through whom all nations, Jews and Gentiles, would be blessed. This follows the providing of the ram. The other references to the seed in ch 12 v 7 and ch 15 v 18 shows descendents being given a land; so Messiah is not in view here directly, although indirectly the Jews will not inherit the land properly and securely without Messiah and that at his second coming.

There are numerous prophecies relating to Israel in the Old Testament which have not yet been fulfilled, particularly stated after the return from exile. Promises of prosperity, peace and land, stated in terms that clearly have never been fulfilled. After the return from exile Israel was under subjugation from initially the Medes, then the Greeks then the Romans. In the days of Jesus, Israel was under Roman subjugation, and in AD 70 the temple was destroyed and the Jews exiled.

Israel remained a lowly sparsely populated and insignificant country until the second regathering at the turn of the 19th centaury which gathered momentum just after the 2nd World war under the Balfour declaration. In 1947 Israel was declared a sovereign state by the League of Nations.

My point is that Israel has never enjoyed the sort of conditions prophesied since the days of King David. So we must conclude that the prophecies are yet future.

The replacement theologists allegorise the said prophecies relate to the church. Is this a fair treatment of interprutation? I see no justification for allegorising such passages eg Ezekiel Chapter 36.

The Church has not replaced Israel. We should develop an aptitude of blessing and love for Israel and her people, and to understand that God, in the last days, when His Church is complete, will turn to the Jews and the land of Israel. The promises were both for the land and its people. To reject Israel and the Jews is at least depriving oneself of the blessing to those who bless Abraham. One does not do this out of selfish motives, but because it is God's way and God's plan. Israel is still the "Apple of His eye" (Zechariah ch 2 v 8).

The Church has become arrogant (not my word but Paul's in Romans chapter 11) and claims that the blessings declared in the Old Testament for Israel really were intended for the Church.

God in the last days when His Church is complete, will turn to the Jews and the land of Israel.