Like this:

This is a summary and reflection on the second sermon in our senior pastor’s four part series on biblical prophecy, “So What’s Next?”.
Go here for an intro to the topic, and go here for my reflection on the first sermon.

While the first sermon in the series gave a general defense of the importance of studying biblical prophecy, this week’s sermon got into more specifics. It was entitled “Signs of the Times”, and the bulk of the sermon was devoted to discussing one such sign, the restoration of Israel as a geo-politically recognized nation in may of 1948.

Now, as I’ve previously stated, I am not a dispensationalist, so from the get-go I am going to have disagreements with any discussion of the nation of Israel and the end times. So what I want to do is take the one major premise of the sermon and respectfully disagree with it on Scriptural grounds.

So, here it is:

The re-establishment of the nation of Israel as a formally recognized nation in May of 1948 is a partial fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant given in Genesis 12:1-3.

I disagree with this statement, but let me just touch on these verses from Genesis briefly before I explain why.

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
— Genesis 12:1-3

Here God is promising Abram (later to be renamed by God as Abraham) blessing in two ways – land and seed. Property and procreation. Ownership and offspring. Dominion and dynasty.

These twin themes continue to run throughout the rest of the Old Testament and are crucial for understanding the nation of Israel. They are expanded upon in the coming chapters of Genesis, specifically in chapters 15 and 17. But the initial promise is here in chapter 12.

So, the premise of the sermon is that the land portion of this promise to Abram was partially fulfilled in 1948 when Israel was re-established as a nation.

Now, here is why I disagree with the premise of this sermon:

1. This viewpoint misses the purpose for which the promise was given to Abraham

   If you look closer at the verses, you’ll actually notice that there is a specific purpose for which God is promising land and seed to Abram. It is not an end in itself, it is not just for the purpose of giving Abram and his descendants a certain portion of land in the middle east. The purpose is actually stated twice right in these three verses.

   At the end of verse 2 it says “so that you will be a blessing”, and at the end of verse 3 it says “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed”.

   So God is promising these things to Abram so that somehow, someway, they will lead to blessing for the entire world. Any sermon or exposition of this text that misses this purpose is going to be off in a wrong direction.

   Now, it’s possible that this just wasn’t stated in the sermon, but even so, in the dispensational scheme of things I have a hard time understanding just how modern Israel as a nation is going to fulfill this purpose – it doesn’t match up.

2. This viewpoint misses that the promise was fulfilled when Israel conquered and received Canaan, recounted in great detail in the book of Joshua

   Secondly, it is obvious in the book of Joshua that the land and seed promise to Abraham was fulfilled when the Israelites conquered and obtained the land of Canaan. The middle chapters of Joshua go to excruciating details to ensure that we know that this land now belongs to Israel (see chapters 13-22) – each tribe is listed with the exact boundaries of land that belong to them.

   And in 23:14, Joshua states emphatically that “not one word has failed of all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed.”

   The land was given to Israel in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham; not in 1948, but in the conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua.

3. This viewpoint misses the New Testament’s authoritative interpretation of these opening verses of Genesis 12

   Ultimately, our interpretation of the Old Testament always has to rest on the New Testament. When Jesus or the apostles interpret something a certain way, we are bound to interpret it that same way along with them. So, a question that must be asked of any text is, “Is it used or referenced anywhere in the New Testament?”

   And with Genesis 12:1-3, we do have such a usage. And it might be a surprising usage depending on how you are used to reading the Scriptures:

   Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
   — Galatians: 3:7-9

   There is so much richness in these few verses – but I just want to focus on one major point. Remember the purpose of Genesis 12? That God was blessing Abram so the entire world would be blessed? Well Paul picks up that purpose here, but he does something that might be surprising to you.

   He calls it the gospel.

   That’s right, the gospel. When God told Abram “in you all the nations will be blessed”, it was a prophecy/promise that the Gentiles would be justified by faith, i.e., the gospel.

   In other words, the purpose that is given directly in Genesis 12 is ultimately fulfilled by the fact that the land and seed promised to Abraham culminated in bringing forth the ultimate seed, the Messiah, Jesus Christ. And through Him, the entire world is blessed.

   This is the ultimate meaning and purpose of the promise to Abraham. And it’s happened already.

   We don’t need to look for another fulfillment in modern day Israel, she has already brought forth the world’s Messiah.

So, this in brief is why I disagree that the re-establishment of modern-day Israel in 1948 is a “sign of the times”, and more specifically, why I disagree that it is in any way a fulfillment of the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12.

And just to re-iterate, there is much room for disagreement on the end times, there are different views held by different bible-believing, Christ-loving Christians, both among churchgoers, pastors and scholars. We shouldn’t divide over these differences, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a healthy and robust disagreement as we desire to understand the truth in greater depth.

Advertisement