Book Review: The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow by O. Palmer Robertson (P&R Publishing; Phillipsburg, 2000).

There are many universally agreed upon issues in the Christian church. However, there are a number of subjects that Christians have a variety of views on across a broad spectrum; among these divisive issues is the subject of the Israel of God. For many Christians, it is very important (even a biblical mandate) that world governments should support, approve, and encourage the present day state of Israel specifically under the pretense that said state is integral to the outworking of God’s plan of salvation for the nations. Some Christians today expect not only a future conversion of ethnic Israel, but some even anticipate a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, complete with resumed sacrifices and priesthood. Others argue that no such future lies ahead for the state of Israel. Still others believe some combination of these things or believe these things apply to the ethnic people of Israel but not necessarily to the present day nation-state of Israel. The possible combinations of views are nearly limitless.

Thinking about these issues requires careful consideration of the biblical idea of “Israel” before one even begins to talk about what the future might hold for “Israel.” Many Christians haven’t reflected deeply upon this idea. O. Palmer Robertson’s book The Israel of God is helpful for precisely this reason: he forces the reader to go deep on the question of Israel, what it was before, what it is today, and whether there is a future for Israel, and if so, what that future looks like.

To do this, O. Palmer Robertson begins his book The Israel of God by talking about the issue of land. Many people expect that there will be a future possession of physical real estate in the land of Israel that is necessary for the end times to come to full fruit. For some, the emergence of the modern Jewish state in Israel is a fulfillment of such an expectation. While I don’t have the space to explore all of Dr. Robertson’s arguments, I may share a few of his conclusions. Regarding the land, he argues that the promise of Israel possessing land was always bigger than something like owning real estate in a particular place. As Hebrews 11:10 reminds us, Abraham didn’t set his hope on the land promise of Genesis 12:7 as a literal fulfillment, but looked for a city “whose architect and builder” was God, and for “a better country” that had heavenly characteristics. In other words, the land was always a type and shadow, but not the final truth of what awaited Israel. The problem, according to Robertson:

“many theologians in the present day continue to interpret the promise of the land in the old covenant in terms of its shadowy, typological dimensions, rather than recognizing the greater scope of new covenant fulfillments. Many would view the establishment of the modern state of Israel as a fulfillment of the promise of the land as it was originally given to the patriarchs” (27).

The truth is, the coming of Christ (argues Robertson) is a fulfillment of those land promises. We cannot keep going back to the shadows of the Old Covenant as though they still have something good for us. “Reality must not give way to shadow. By claiming the old covenant form of the promise of the land, the Jews of today may be forfeiting its greater new covenant fulfillment. Rather than playing the role of Jacob as heir apparent to the redemptive promises made to Abraham their father, they could be assuming the role of Esau by selling their birthright for a fleshly pot of porridge” (31). Compared to the glories and riches of Christ, land in the Near East is a pittance. He goes on to encourage evangelicals not to nudge modern day Jews toward putting their hope in possessing land and real estate. As he puts it, “How sad it would be if evangelical Christians who profess to love the Jewish people should become a primary tool in misdirecting their faith and expectation.”

But just who is the “Israel of God” who may claim the promises of God in the new covenant era? He goes on to argue that the Scripture has an explicitly Gentile orientation. It began with Abraham who “was originally nothing more than another pagan ‘Gentile’ before being called by God” (34). Scripture went on to remind us that anyone could become a part of Israel if they were willing to receive the covenant sign. In the end, the kingdom was taken from the ethnic and religious people of Israel (Matt. 21:43) and yet not finally (Rom. 11:1). Galatians 6:16 speaks of the “Israel of God” which consists not just of believing Jews, but also believing Gentiles. The Israel of God has to include more than just ethnic Jews precisely because in Galatians 6:16 “if the phrase ‘Israel of God’ is understood to refer to the Jewish people, then Paul has pronounced his apostolic ‘peace and mercy’ over a people regardless of their faith in Jesus Christ. That would flatly contradict Paul’s whole argument throughout the letter to the Galatians…” (40). Instead, “Paul, the Hebrew of the Hebrews, the learned Jewish Pharisee, the one steeped in the traditions of Judaism, transfers the customary benediction of Israel to the universal church of Jesus Christ, the new Israel of God” (45). “[I]t is not that the church takes the place of Israel, but that a renewed Israel of God is being formed by the shaping of the church” (118).

After this, Robertson turns his attention to the worship of Israel. He offers a rich exposition of Hebrews 7, arguing that “[t]he church of today must lay aside its spiritual ineptness and grow in its understanding of the significance of Christ’s high priestly work for its worship” (58). He reminds us of Melchizedek, who was a Gentile, and yet “greater than the greatest of the Jews in the Old Testament.” The worship of Israel, in other words, transcends the ethnic and religious bounds of Israel and did so according to plan from the very beginning. “The point must be acknowledged. Nothing inherent in the descendants of Abraham makes them superior to other worshipers of God.” There is no benefit whatsoever to returning to Old Testament forms of worship, says Robertson: “Any returning to the older forms of the old covenant could only mean loss of blessing” (78). On the contrary, “[n]o deficiency characterizes Jesus, the great high priest of the new covenant” (81). His point in this section on worship is, of course, that Christians should find no joy in the idea of a rebuilt temple, a resumption of sacrifices, or the return of a priesthood. “No priesthood on earth could compare with the perfected priesthood of Jesus in heaven, and it would be an insult to his perfect sacrifice to suggest that any subsequent offering by other priests would be able to reconcile the sinner to God” (82). Not only would this not be a true fulfillment of Old Testament expectations, but it would be going back to shadows.

Robertson then turns his attention to the idea of Israel’s wilderness wanderings and shows that the New Testament authors (1 Cor. 10:3-5; Hebrews 3:1-6; 4:11-13; 12:18-24) picture the church today as existing in continuity with Israel’s own wilderness wanderings. As he puts it, “The Christian life must be understood as an interim existence between ‘exodus’ and ‘conquest’” (89). But Christians interpret their own existence in light of Israel because by faith they are a true part of Israel. He offers an application: “Once the wilderness lifestyle that has been appointed for the Israel of God in the new covenant has been recognized, the demise of a misleading triumphalism should quickly follow. For just as God’s people under Moses spent forty years wandering in the desert, so the people of God today must expect a life ‘in the desert’ until the time of the consummation” (110).

Robertson then moves to the issue of the “kingdom of God.” He highlights the New Testament principle that the kingdom of God does not relate to a physical nation, ultimately, or a land that is owned. Instead, the kingdom of God truly is spiritual and transcendent. “The most remarkable thing about the remainder of Paul’s writings is the lack of any suggestion that the Jews, considered nationally or individually, will play a distinctive role in the final coming of the kingdom of God. With an utterly even hand he excludes all the unrighteous, whether Jews or Gentiles, from the coming kingdom. Not one’s ethnic origin, but one’s faith in the Messiah who has come, determines one’s participation in the eternal kingdom of Christ. Only faith distinguishes between the eternally saved and the eternally lost” (148). To put it bluntly, “The Jews were uniquely ‘his own people,’ yet they rejected him” (150). It is faith in Christ that makes one a child of Abraham, and if one will not put their faith in Jesus, then they have no reason to think of themselves as Abraham’s offspring.

Finally, Robertson turns to what he regards as the closest candidate in the New Testament for a passage indicating some sort of future role for the ethnic people of Israel, Romans 11:1-24. In particular there is that difficult phrase “In this manner all Israel shall be saved.” Many read this verse and see a promise that there is coming a day when large numbers of ethnic Jews will be converted. I do not have time to offer his in-depth exegetical support, but I will share Robertson’s conclusion: “’All Israel,’ then, consists of the entire body of God’s elect from among both Jews and Gentiles. This is the group whom Paul calls ‘the Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16, where he insists that Christians must walk according to the rule that no distinction is to be made between circumcised and uncircumcised people (v. 15)” (189). Robertson makes an application for contemporary expectations regarding the state of Israel: “Nothing in this chapter says anything about the restoration of an earthly Davidic kingdom, or of a return to the land of the Bible, or of the restoration of a national state of Israel, or of a church of Jewish Christians separated from Gentile Christians. On the contrary, the redefined Israel of God includes both Jews and Gentiles in one body. In terms of the spread of the gospel today, it is essential that Jewish Christians recognize their fellowship with Gentile Christians to be a vital element in the conversion of additional Jews” (191).

Robertson finally wraps up with this conclusion: “The present state of Israel is not a concrete realization of the messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, a day should not be anticipated in which Christ’s kingdom will manifest Jewish distinctives either by its location in ‘the land,’ or by its constituency, or by its distinctively Jewish practices. Instead, this present age will come to a climactic conclusion with the arrival of the final phase of the kingdom of the Messiah. At that time, all eyes will see the King in his glory. Every knee will bow, and every tongue will declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. The kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever” (195-196).

For my part, I deeply appreciated reading Robertson’s book. While I was already generally in agreement with his positions I found that he helped to elucidate and clarify many of the issues involved. I was challenged but also fed by reading this book. These are obviously tense topics with geopolitical implications, and I would be surprised if those reading my summary of The Israel of God did not find much they disagree with in what has been summarized – especially depending on your own religious background and diet. If someone comes from a dispensational background much of this book may seem downright scandalous.

My personal encouragement would be to consider reading The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow by O. Palmer Robertson even if you disagree with some of the things you’ve read here in my summary. Read the book like a Berean (Acts 17:11) who heard things that challenged them but compared the teaching with Scripture. Listen to Robertson’s biblical arguments and ask if what he is saying comes from the text of Scripture. Not only do I think you will find a scripturally saturated biblical theology of the people of God, not only will you find some of your own assumptions challenged, but you will find yourselves repeatedly pointed to the Savior, Jesus Christ, who took Jews and Gentiles and constituted them into one holy nation (Ex. 19:6).

Adam Parker is the Senior Pastor of Evergreen Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Beaverton, Oregon. He is the husband of Arryn and a father of four. He is a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS.