The Return of Christ and The Restoration of Israel — House of David Ministries
The Millennial Kingdom and the Fulfillment of God’s Covenant Promises
The Return of Christ and the Millennial Kingdom
It is an undisputed tenet of Christianity that Jesus will return, and when He does, He will fully usher in the Kingdom of God. The prophet Zechariah declared: “Therefore thus says the LORD: I am returning to Jerusalem with mercy; My house shall be built in it, says the LORD of hosts, And a surveyor’s line shall be stretched out over Jerusalem” (Zechariah 1:16, NKJV).[i] At the end of His earthly ministry, Jesus ascended to Heaven from the Mount of Olives. Two angels who stood there spoke to the disciples, saying, “This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Jesus is returning to Jerusalem in the clouds with power and great glory. Every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him.[ii]
Yet the promise of Christ’s return raises an equally important question: What happens when He returns? Does His coming immediately inaugurate the eternal state, or does Scripture reveal an earthly Kingdom that must first be established before all things are made new? How we answer that question profoundly affects how we understand God’s remaining promises to Israel.
While most Christians agree that Jesus is returning to Jerusalem, substantial differences of opinion remain about what will happen when He does. Two primary views exist: The first view posits that, at His return, Jesus establishes a New Heaven and a New Earth, and everything of old passes away. This view is called postmillennialism, or similarly, amillennialism, and for Scripture to align with itself, all the Second Advent markers must be fulfilled at that moment. There will be a resurrection of all who have died, a final judgment, and the beginning of mankind’s eternal state. No future earthly kingdom will exist after Christ returns; all things will be made new. The Roman Catholic Church, Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Wesleyan, and all branches of Christian Orthodoxy hold these views.
The alternate view is called premillennialism, and it holds to a literal interpretation of Revelation 20: Christ returns to establish a one-thousand-year kingdom; at the end of this Millennial Kingdom, there will be the final judgment, mankind’s eternal state, and a New Heaven and a New Earth. This view is held predominantly by Pentecostal, Evangelical, non-denominational, and many Baptist churches. While Postmillennial and Amillennial theologians argue that the thousand years are metaphorical or allegorical, the verses in Revelation seem to clearly indicate that God intends to establish a literal one-thousand-year kingdom here on earth. We read:
“He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while. And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them.
Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison” (Revelation 20:2-7).
Six times in this one chapter, there is explicit reference to a period of one thousand years. And notice the progressive revelation and attention to detail: Satan is bound for one thousand years and cast into the pit. Then, after the thousand years, Satan is released to once again deceive the nations. We then read an explicit reference to those martyred for the testimony of Christ, who will rule and reign with Christ for one thousand years, presumably after their resurrection. The rest of the dead, it says, were not raised until the thousand years are finished. Lastly, Jesus closes with a promise to all who are blessed to be part of the first resurrection: we will rule and reign with Christ for one thousand years.
These verses are clearly not allegorical. An allegory would say something like, “For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand” (Psalm 84:10), or “With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). Instead, these verses provide evidence that when Christ returns, He will first usher in a literal earthly Kingdom that will last for one thousand years. After that, there will be a New heaven and a New Earth and the establishment of God’s eternal Kingdom.
Revelation 20 therefore gives us more than a chronology of future events. It raises a larger theological question: Why does God establish this earthly Kingdom at all? Before answering that question, however, we should first consider how the earliest Christians understood these passages and how the church’s interpretation of the millennium changed over time.
The Early Church and the Millennium
The New Testament reveals a recurring sequence that emphasizes a premillennial view, namely that Christ presently reigns from Heaven through His church, Christ returns at the Second Advent, there is the first resurrection and the rapture of the church, the consummation of the literal millennial Kingdom, and then, after that, the second resurrection, the final Great White Throne of judgment, and the defeat of God’s preeminent last enemy, the death of death itself.
However, the apostles never described themselves as premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial. These are later theological classifications imposed upon earlier interpretations. The more important question is whether the sequence described in Revelation 20 appears in the earliest generations of Christianity, and whether those closest to the apostolic era expected an earthly Kingdom following Christ’s return.
The written historical evidence from the generation immediately after the apostles is extremely important. According to Irenaeus, Papias of Hierapolis (A.D. 60-130) was connected to hearers of the Apostle John and claimed to have received traditions from those acquainted with the apostles. Eusebius (A.D. 260-339) later reported that Papias taught that after the resurrection, Christ’s Kingdom would be established on earth for a thousand years. This view is called chiliasm, an ancient term that broadly corresponds to premillennialism.[iii]
Justin Martyr, writing around the middle of the second century, is also valuable because he reveals both his chiliastic position and the disagreement among other Christians concerning the Kingdom. In Dialogue with Trypho 80, Justin says that he and other Christians expected a resurrection followed by a thousand years in a restored Jerusalem. But he explicitly acknowledges that other faithful Christians disagreed. Therefore, we cannot responsibly say that every early Christian was premillennial, but it is clear that a recognizable chiliastic (premillennial) interpretation existed very early in the church and was held by prominent orthodox Christians.[iv]
Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, Book V, written around A.D. 180, presents a very explicit earthly kingdom following the resurrection. He argues that the righteous must receive the inheritance God promised and reign in the renewed creation before the final judgment. Even more interesting is that Irenaeus appeals directly to Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel, including prophecies concerning Israel’s restoration and dwelling in the land. He explicitly rejects attempts to turn all such prophetic language into allegory; rather, he places their fulfillment after the resurrection within an earthly Jerusalem, following the end of the reign of the Antichrist.
The transition to amillennialism happened gradually as opponents of chiliasm already existed in the early centuries, particularly among theologians influenced by more allegorical approaches to biblical interpretation. Amillennialism means “no millennium” in a literal or earthly sense. In the third century, Origen had an especially important role in that trajectory. However, the theology of Augustine of Hippo (AD 354–430) became decisive for Western Christianity. Augustine initially sympathized with a millennial interpretation of Scripture, but ultimately interpreted Revelation 20 as corresponding substantially to the present reign of Christ and the Church age. In other words, he believed the church was already living in the Millennial Kingdom, though he qualified it as an inferior state until Christ returns.
A historical summary preserved with Eusebius notes that chiliasm, also called historic premillennialism, was widespread in the ante-Nicene Church. He names Papias, Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian among its proponents, and observes that after Constantine it declined considerably. Thus, Augustine’s interpretation that the millennium represents Christ’s present reign, and that there is no future Millennial Kingdom, became the church’s dominant theological view. In summary, the church from A.D. 100–300 was substantially chiliastic (premillennial). From A.D. 300–400, chiliasm declined. Then, around A.D. 400, Augustine developed a mature theological formulation of what later became called amillennialism. The Eastern tradition at that time also rejected a literalistic millennial kingdom, although its theological development cannot simply be identified with Augustine’s Western system.
By the fifth century, therefore, the center of Christian eschatology had shifted considerably. The expectation of an earthly millennial Kingdom, prominent among several important early Christian writers, gradually gave way to an allegorical interpretation in which the millennium was increasingly identified with Christ’s present reign through the Church. That shift would profoundly shape both medieval Christianity and the Protestant traditions that followed.
From the Reformation to Dispensationalism
The Reformation dramatically challenged medieval Christianity on questions of biblical authority, salvation, ecclesiology, and worship. Yet on the question of the millennium, the Reformers generally retained the Augustinian framework they had inherited. From that foundation would eventually emerge both the more optimistic postmillennial vision of Protestantism and, centuries later, Darby’s distinctive dispensational form of premillennialism. In contrast to amillennialism, postmillennialism means Christ will return after the millennium.
While they rejected enormous portions of medieval Catholic theology, they did not generally recover early Christian chiliasm. Lutheran and Reformed traditions continued the non-premillennial interpretation. And later, postmillennial ideas developed gradually, particularly within Protestantism, and became more clearly articulated in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Puritan and Reformed expectations concerning the worldwide triumph of the Gospel contributed substantially to its development.
Daniel Whitby (1638–1726) is frequently associated with the development of a systematic postmillennial interpretation. His distinctive proposition was essentially that Christ presently reigns from Heaven; the church spreads the gospel, progressively discipling the nations; an extended era of Christian prosperity and Kingdom influence follows; and then Christ returns to receive the Kingdom from the Saints. Notice that he retains the Augustinian placement of Christ’s return after the millennium while becoming considerably more optimistic about what happens historically before that return. Therefore, historically, amillennialism and postmillennialism are closely related, but not identical theological positions.
In 1827, John Nelson Darby left his Church of Ireland ministry to become a leading figure in the emerging Plymouth Brethren movement. During the late 1820s and 1830s, his prophetic theology developed a particular form of premillennialism called dispensationalism. It brought together several ideas into a more distinctive theological framework involving dispensations, Israel and the Church, prophecy, and Christ’s return. Darby introduced a much sharper ecclesiological distinction between Israel and the Church.
In classical dispensationalism, God’s prophetic program for national Israel and His purposes for the Church are distinguished. Israel’s Old Testament covenant promises, therefore, await their complete future fulfillment. The pretribulation rapture component later became especially influential through dispensationalism and, in America, through the Scofield Reference Bible and subsequent Bible institutes, seminaries, prophecy conferences, and evangelical writings. Darby’s nineteenth-century dispensationalism reorganized premillennial eschatology within a newer theological system characterized particularly by a sharper distinction between Israel and the Church and, in its classical form, a pre-tribulation rapture.
These historical developments explain how Christians arrived at substantially different understandings of the millennium. But history alone cannot determine which interpretation is correct. We must return to Scripture and ask a more fundamental question: What purpose would an earthly Messianic Kingdom serve within God’s redemptive plan?
The Millennium and God’s Unfulfilled Promises to Israel
From a purely Christian doctrinal perspective, the one-thousand-year Kingdom can initially appear superfluous, as though it were an unnecessary interval between Christ’s return and the eternal state. If God ultimately intends to make all things new, why not establish the New Heaven and New Earth immediately? But from the perspective of God’s covenants with Israel, the millennium is anything but superfluous. It provides the historical arena in which God fulfills His remaining restorative promises to Israel and vindicates His covenant faithfulness before the nations.
Christianity has seen several major schisms over the millennia, from the split between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church in the West, to the Reformation. However, we are seeing another schism that appears to be dividing the church over one essential, fundamental aspect of Scripture: the restoration of Israel. In my opinion, this divide is more than theological; it is spiritual, as in, there is a spiritual blindness that has come over the Gentiles concerning God’s eternal and unbreakable covenant promises to Israel. This blindness has certainly fueled antisemitism over the centuries. Still, more insidiously, it allowed an overlapping form of amillennial and postmillennial theology into the church called supersessionism, more commonly known as replacement theology. The key difference is that millennialism answers a question about the timing and character of Christ’s kingdom. In contrast, supersessionism answers a question about Israel’s continuing theological role in God’s covenant purposes.
The phrase replacement theology can obscure several substantially different positions. At its strongest, it means that God rejected Israel as His covenant people and replaced Israel with the Gentile Church, so the biblical promises specifically given to Israel are transferred to the Church. Many theologians accused of holding this position would reject this formulation and instead describe their position as fulfillment theology or covenant theology, saying the Church does not replace Israel. Rather, God’s covenant purposes for Israel reached their fulfillment in Israel’s Messiah, Jesus Christ, and Jews and Gentiles who belong to Christ together constitute the one people of God. This distinction matters when interpreting Romans 9-11.
Historically, amillennialism has been most strongly associated with supersessionist interpretations. The basic theological structure is straightforward. God’s promises to Israel culminate in Christ. Christ is Abraham’s true seed and the Davidic Messiah. Those united to Christ consequently inherit the promises. Paul’s statement in Galatians 3:29 becomes important: “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29). Likewise, Paul describes Gentile believers in Romans 11 as wild olive branches grafted into Israel’s cultivated olive tree. Under a traditional amillennial reading, there are not ultimately two parallel covenant peoples—Israel and the Church. There is one people of God centered on Christ. However, this does not necessarily mean ethnic Israel has no future significance, and this is where amillennialists are divided.
Paul says that “Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:25-26). Some amillennialists interpret “all Israel” as the total people of God, Jews and Gentiles in Christ. Others understand it as referring to a future large-scale conversion of ethnic Israel. An amillennial Christian can simultaneously believe that there is one covenant people of God in Christ; Jews and Gentiles are saved in precisely the same way; there will not be a separate Jewish millennial kingdom; and God nevertheless has a future redemptive purpose for ethnic Israel according to Romans 11.
Postmillennialism historically developed especially strongly within Reformed covenant theology, so many postmillennialists share the same fundamental idea of one covenant people of God. They therefore generally reject the dispensational idea that God operates two distinct redemptive programs—one for Israel and another for the Church. Yet many postmillennialists have also expected a future conversion of ethnic Israel. And Romans 11 can actually become an important component of postmillennial expectations. Romans 11 becomes particularly significant: “Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!” (Romans 11:12). And then Paul says: “For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (Romans 11:15). Some postmillennial interpreters understand this as anticipating an extraordinary expansion of the kingdom associated with Israel’s eventual turning to Christ.
The question, therefore, is not simply whether there is one redeemed people of God. Scripture clearly teaches that Jews and Gentiles are reconciled to God through the same Messiah. The more difficult question is whether this spiritual unity in Christ eliminates the national, territorial, and covenantal distinctions found in Scripture concerning Israel. To answer that question, we must look more closely at Paul’s language.
One Body in Christ: Yet Israel Remains Israel
Here we must make a distinction that is often lost in the debate. Unity in salvation does not necessarily require erasing every distinction in calling, identity, or covenant purpose. Scripture can affirm one redeemed people in Messiah while still distinguishing Israel, the Gentiles, and the nations within God’s unfolding purposes.
The deeper questions concern the territorial and national promises to Israel and how these directly or indirectly relate to the church. The first question is: Is there one people of God, or two? Covenant theology generally answers that there is one: believing Jews and Gentiles are one people of God together in Christ. The second question is, does ethnic Israel still retain a distinctive prophetic and redemptive future? Lastly, do the specific national and territorial promises given to Israel remain applicable to ethnic and national Israel? Disagreement surrounds all three questions, and Romans 11 is becoming the central battleground.
A traditional supersessionist viewpoint would answer these questions universally. For example, Abraham’s inheritance ultimately becomes the whole renewed creation, rather than requiring a distinct future territorial fulfillment for national Israel. And Paul’s language in Romans 4:13 is equally important here: Abraham would be “heir of the world.” Dispensationalism, by contrast, generally maintains that God’s promises concerning Israel, Jerusalem, and the land all require a future fulfillment specifically involving national and ethnic Israel.
Classical dispensationalism, particularly in its earlier Darby/Scofield forms, maintained a considerably sharper theological distinction between Israel and the Church. Israel constituted God’s earthly covenant people, while the Church possessed a distinctive heavenly calling and was understood as a mystery not revealed in the Old Testament in the same manner as Israel’s prophetic program. In other words: Classical dispensational theology tended to separate God’s prophetic program for Israel from God’s program for the Church, rather than seeing them as one continuing Biblical narrative that began with Israel, expands to the nations, and culminates with Israel’s ultimate redemption and the final consummation when all of God’s people are united as one new man in Christ. Therefore, rather than taking a strict, classical dispensational view, I would argue that Israel, the Messiah, the church, and the Gentiles (the nations) are components of one unfolding redemptive plan for humanity.
The Church age could consequently be described as a kind of parenthesis or intercalation within God’s prophetic dealings with Israel. It is not necessarily an accident or divine afterthought, but a previously hidden dispensation after which God’s prophetic program concerning Israel resumes. God told Abraham: “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). The promise then narrowed through Abraham’s natural seed: from Isaac to Jacob (renamed Israel), to Judah and, ultimately, to the Messiah from the House of David. But then God’s plan expands outward again. Hence we read in Psalm 2: “Ask of Me, and I will give You The nations for Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for Your possession” (Psalm 2:8).
Isaiah similarly presents Israel’s Servant as extending God’s salvation beyond Israel, saying, “I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 49:6). And Paul describes the mystery now revealed as Gentiles become “fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (Ephesians 3:6). This does not look like two unrelated redemptive programs. It looks like one expanding messianic purpose in which God’s promises to Israel become the means through which His blessing reaches the nations. Still, expansion does not necessarily require Israel’s disappearance.
Therefore, we find an intermediate position that answers these questions. One can believe that Christ expands, rather than cancels, Israel’s inheritance. Israel’s Messiah inherits the nations; Gentiles are incorporated into Israel’s blessings through Him, while God’s covenant purposes concerning ethnic Israel are thereby not nullified. In other words: God made eternal and unbreakable covenants with Israel. Those covenants culminate and are fulfilled in Israel’s Messiah, Jesus (Yeshua). The Gentiles receive their blessings through union with Christ and their fellow heirs, the Jews. Thus, Jews and Gentiles constitute one redeemed body in Christ, and yet Israel remains identifiable as Israel. God’s unfulfilled promises to national Israel therefore remain to be fulfilled at His Second Advent.
It suggests a more nuanced question than: Did the church replace Israel? Rather, we should ask: How are Israel, Messiah, believing Jews, believing Gentiles, and the nations incorporated into the one inheritance of Christ without erasing the distinctions Scripture itself continues to make?
In answering this question, it is important to separate ecclesiology, soteriology, and national identity. Scripture can affirm all the following without requiring them to collapse into one another. First, God has one redeemed people in Christ. Jew and Gentile are reconciled in one body (Eph. 2:14–18), Gentiles are fellow heirs (Eph. 3:6), and salvation comes through the same Messiah. Second, Gentile inclusion does not require Gentiles to become ethnic or national Israel.
Romans 11 fits this framework particularly well. Paul describes Gentile believers as wild olive branches grafted into an already-existing olive tree, sharing in its nourishing root while remaining distinguishable from its natural branches (Romans 11:17–24). He specifically distinguishes “Israel” (natural branches) from “the Gentiles” (wild branches) in Romans 11:25 and anticipates the salvation of “all Israel” in verses 26–29. There are not two separate olive trees; one for Israel and another comprising the church. And Paul also does not say that the wild branches become natural branches.
There is one root, one tree, natural branches, wild branches grafted in, some natural branches presently broken off through unbelief, and the possibility, and even the expectation, of their being grafted in again. Paul does not tell the Gentile branches that they became Israel. He distinguishes them from the natural branches even after their grafting, saying, “You, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them...” (Romans 11:17). The Gentile shares “with them” in the nourishing root, and Paul’s warning makes little sense if the distinction has disappeared.
Lastly, Paul continues to identify ethnic Israel as Israel during the Church age. Romans 9 through 11 is difficult to explain otherwise. Paul speaks of his “countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites” (Rom. 9:3–4), distinguishes Israel from Gentiles (9:30–31), asks whether God has rejected “His people” (11:1), and continues distinguishing Israel and Gentiles in 11:25. That makes Romans 11:25 especially significant: “Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”
Paul even warns the Gentile believer: “Remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you” (Romans 11:18). These verses are extremely difficult to reconcile with a simplistic version of replacement theology. However, the one-tree imagery also creates tension with an excessively rigid dispensational separation between Israel and the Church.
Whatever one ultimately concludes about verse 26, “Israel” and “Gentiles” remain distinguishable categories in Paul’s argument. And Romans 11:28 is particularly difficult for a strong replacement model. Paul says of unbelieving Israel: “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:28-29). Notice that Paul is not talking about Jewish Christians there. He is talking about unsaved Jewish people, those who are presently “enemies” concerning the gospel. And yet, they remain connected to election “for the sake of the fathers.”
The New Covenant illustrates the same principle. Jeremiah explicitly says: “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31). Jesus identifies His blood with that New Covenant (Luke 22:20), and Paul applies New Covenant realities to all believers. So Gentile Christians unquestionably participate in New Covenant blessings. The theological question is whether our participation exhausts Jeremiah’s promise to Israel.
The Church’s present participation demonstrates that the covenant has been inaugurated in Christ. Still, it does not logically follow that every aspect of Jeremiah’s covenant promise to Israel has therefore been fulfilled. This view allows for the present fulfillment in Christ and the Church, and a future fulfillment concerning Israel without forcing us to choose one against the other. Contemporary theologians often describe it as “already and not yet” or inaugurated fulfillment categories.
Paul’s language in Ephesians 3:6 reinforces this distinction. Gentiles are described as “fellow heirs” (synklēronoma), members of the same body, and “partakers” of the promise in Christ. They participate in Israel’s covenant blessings through Israel’s Messiah. Yet, participation does not require replacement or national reidentification.
Romans 9-11 does not settle every eschatological question, nor does it establish a complete dispensational system on its own. It also does not outright prove every modern Christian claim concerning the State of Israel, nor does it establish dispensationalism. That requires a more extensive study of Old Testament prophecy. But it does provide substantial grounds for distinguishing the continuing biblical identity of Israel from the salvation of individual Jews and Gentiles in Christ, and it creates a serious difficulty for the proposition that Israel’s national and covenantal significance terminated with the establishment of the Church. It also establishes something critically important: incorporating Gentiles into the blessings of Israel’s Messiah does not require Israel’s disappearance from the biblical story. If Israel remains identifiable within God’s covenant purposes, we must then ask what Scripture says God still intends to do for them.
Our understanding of Israel and the Church should avoid two opposite errors. On the one hand, we should reject the supersessionist conclusion that the Church has replaced national Israel, so that God’s unfulfilled covenant promises to Israel have either been transferred entirely to the Church or stripped of their national significance. On the other hand, we need not create such a rigid separation between Israel and the Church that they become two independent peoples of God operating within two separate plans of redemption.
Scripture presents something more integrated. God’s redemptive purposes flow through Abraham, Israel, and ultimately Israel’s Messiah, Jesus Christ, through whom the promised blessing extends to the nations. Gentile believers therefore do not replace Israel, nor do they become a new ethnic or national Israel. Rather, through faith in Israel’s Messiah, they become “fellow heirs” and “partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (Ephesians 3:6).
Therefore, there is one redeemed people of God and one means of salvation through Jesus Christ, but unity in Christ does not require erasing Israel’s national identity. Indeed, Paul continues to distinguish Israel from the Gentiles even as he describes their participation in the same redemptive blessings. Israel experiences a partial hardening “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in,” after which Paul declares that “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:25–26). He grounds this expectation in God’s covenant faithfulness, declaring that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29).
The Church’s present participation in Israel’s covenant blessings should therefore be understood as evidence that God’s promises have been inaugurated in Israel’s Messiah, not as proof that every promise made to national Israel has been exhausted. The New Covenant provides a striking example. Jeremiah explicitly promises this covenant to “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31). At the same time, the New Testament clearly teaches that believing Jews and Gentiles presently participate in its blessings through Christ. Present participation and future fulfillment are not mutually exclusive. The inclusion of the nations magnifies God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel rather than nullifying it.
The Irrevocable Calling and Future Restoration of Israel
If Israel retains a continuing covenantal identity in Scripture, then the question becomes unavoidable: What becomes of the promises God made specifically to Israel? If those promises are permanently transferred away from Israel, then the millennium becomes increasingly difficult to explain. But if God has not abandoned His covenant purposes for the descendants of Jacob, the prophetic Kingdom begins to make remarkable sense.
Focusing exclusively on Christ’s universal mission of the church, we might fail to recognize that almost the entirety of Scripture speaks to this one small people group: the Jews, this tiny remnant of ancient Israel, whom God has promised to redeem and restore to the land He promised to Abraham. Jesus Himself said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). And the Lord makes His purpose clear: “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went” (Ezekiel 36:22). God loves Israel, but at the same time, desires to vindicate His name which Israel has defiled amongst the nations.
Recognizing and embracing God’s covenant promises to Israel does not, in any way, diminish Christ’s Kingdom work through His church to advance the Gospel and make disciples of every nation. Still, there is a minority of Christians who overly emphasize their allegiance to the laws and covenants of Israel, particularly the admonition that Gentiles should follow the Law of Moses as a precondition to their salvation. Paul referred to these as Judaizers and vehemently rejected their false Gospel narrative that was leading people away from the love of God and His simple message of salvation and moving them towards a works-based plan of salvation.
Additionally, recognizing God’s promises to Israel does not, in any way, diminish the unbound love that God has for all the nations—His whole creation. Understandably, Gentile Christians want to see in Scripture that they are loved by God and valued the same as Israel. And Paul’s epistles are eloquently written to the Gentiles, showing them God’s unbound and infinite love for the nations. So why the division within the church over Israel? I can only surmise it is a combination of jealousy, arrogance, identity crisis, or improperly taught theology. Regardless, each person stands accountable to God for knowing Him intimately and knowing His written word. At the judgment seat of Christ, we will not find our defense by blaming others for our ignorance. Paul says it clearly, “For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion” (Romans 11:25). Our ignorance is no excuse for deviating from God’s truth.
The pattern of division within the church is growing more visible by the day, and it is not necessarily following denominational lines. There are many Roman Catholics, for example, who love Israel and the Jewish people, and believe according to Scripture that God has a salvific plan for them. While the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that there is no literal one-thousand-year Kingdom of Christ after His return, the Catholic Church after Vatican II affirmed God’s irrevocable call to the Jewish people. Nostra Aetate, proclaimed by Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965, reads in part:
“The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.”
“As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading. Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.”
A growing number of Christians are beginning to vocally argue against dispensationalism, blaming Darby and Scofield for establishing a heretical theology that, in their view, disagrees with their hermeneutical interpretation of Scripture. And still, there are Dispensationalists who reject God’s covenant promises for Israel. My point is that no clear distinction follows denominational lines, even as general patterns emerge.
A Lifeway Research study conducted for Chosen People Ministries found that 28 percent of Americans with evangelical beliefs embrace supersessionism, or replacement theology, while 41% reject supersessionism, believing Israel retains a distinct role or that God’s promises are ongoing. The remaining 32% said they were “not sure” about their theological stance concerning Israel.[v] These denominations, by and large, also reject the millennium and instead hold to postmillennial, amillennial, and preterist views concerning God’s Kingdom. Many churches that hold to Reformed Theological views, Covenant Theology, and hardline Calvinistic views also often reject God’s future plans for Israel. This list also includes mainline churches that hold to liberal theology and deconstruct Biblical prophecy on many topics, including the restoration of Israel.
What remains is a small but still sizeable number of Evangelical churches, most of which embrace premillennial dispensational views of Scripture and see the restoration of Israel as central to Christ’s Kingdom. This number, however, is shrinking, especially amongst the younger generations.
Ultimately, then, this question cannot be resolved merely by identifying ourselves as Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Evangelical, Pentecostal, dispensational, or covenantal. Our theological systems must remain subordinate to Scripture. And Scripture repeatedly brings us back to the same promise: God will have mercy upon Jacob, restore Israel, vindicate His holy name, and establish His Kingdom from Jerusalem.
I Am Returning to Jerusalem with Mercy
We can now return to the question with which we began: Why is Israel, and therefore the millennium, so important to our understanding of Christ’s return? The answer is that the restoration of Israel is woven into the very fabric of the prophetic Kingdom. Christ does not merely return to earth in an abstract sense. Scripture repeatedly describes Him returning in connection with Jerusalem, Jacob, Israel, and the promises sworn to the fathers. Quite simply, the restoration of Israel is the very heart of His Kingdom, and we previously read from Zechariah: the Lord declared, “I am returning to Jerusalem with mercy.” And Zechariah is not the only prophet to make such a declaration. Isaiah said, “For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will still choose Israel, and settle them in their own land” (Isaiah 14:1).
Jeremiah declared, “I will bring back the captivity of Jacob’s tents, And have mercy on his dwelling places” (Jeremiah 30:18). Ezekiel said, “Now I will bring back the captives of Jacob, and have mercy on the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for My holy name” (Ezekiel 39:25). And Micah cried out, “He will again have compassion on us, And will subdue our iniquities. You will cast all our sins Into the depths of the sea. You will give truth to Jacob And mercy to Abraham, Which You have sworn to our fathers From days of old” (Micah 7:19-20).
In these verses, and in more than sixty more in Scripture, God promises to have mercy on Jacob, forgive their sins, and restore them to their land. If Jesus merely comes in the clouds and in that instant makes all things new, when could these promises be fulfilled? They cannot. Nor could God restore His name amongst the Gentiles. But there is more.
Christ’s Kingdom is not just the salvation of Israel and the nations. It is the physical presence of His Tabernacle here on earth. Most Christians believe that the Temple in Jerusalem was a temporary dispensation where the Levites made temporary atonement for Israel. But Moses’s Tabernacle is called the Tent of Meeting. It is where God met with His people. And the Lord has explicitly declared in Zechariah, “My house shall be built in it.” Israel’s restoration, therefore, is not the exclusive or final purpose of the Kingdom. Restoration ultimately serves something greater: the return of God’s presence to dwell among His people.
The biblical story that began with God walking with humanity in Eden and continued through the Tabernacle and Temple ultimately points to God dwelling with His creation. Therefore, God’s physical Temple will be built in Jerusalem during the millennium, and Ezekiel was given a very specific image of this Temple; chapter after chapter, the Lord provides intricate details of how His Temple is to be constructed.
And notice what He tells Ezekiel: “And He said to me, Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever. No more shall the house of Israel defile My holy name, they nor their kings, by their harlotry or with the carcasses of their kings on their high place” (Ezekiel 43:7). God is very clear about the purpose of this Temple. It is to serve as His footstool and the place where He will dwell in the midst of Israel forever. This prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. Its fulfillment is in the future, and that time will be the millennium.
The Fulfillment of All Things
The return of Christ and the restoration of Israel are therefore not two unrelated prophetic events. They are inseparably woven together within God’s covenant purposes and the establishment of His Kingdom. Jesus will return just as the prophets, the apostles, and the angels at His ascension declared. He will return to Jerusalem, establish His Kingdom, judge the nations, gather and restore Israel, and fulfill every covenant promise that God has spoken concerning the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And through Israel’s Messiah, the nations themselves are brought into the immeasurable blessings of His Kingdom.
The biblical pattern is therefore not Israel replaced by the Church, nor Israel and the Church separated into unrelated redemptive programs. Rather, Scripture reveals one unfolding purpose of God: His covenant promises proceed through Israel, find their center and fulfillment in Israel’s Messiah, extend through Him to the nations, and ultimately demonstrate God’s faithfulness to both Israel and all who have been brought near through Christ. The nations become Christ’s inheritance without becoming national Israel, while Israel remains the nation to whom God made covenant promises that He has not forgotten.
At stake is God’s faithfulness to His own word. The Lord declared through Ezekiel that He acts for the sake of His holy name, and Paul likewise reminds us that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” If God remains faithful to the covenant promises He made to Israel despite their unbelief and dispersion among the nations, then His faithfulness to Israel testifies to every believer that God does not abandon what He has promised. It is why the restoration of Israel matters.
The millennium, therefore, is not an unnecessary interval before eternity. It is the visible vindication of God’s covenant faithfulness upon the earth—the Kingdom in which Israel’s Messiah reigns, the nations receive their inheritance in Him, Jerusalem becomes the city of the Great King, and the Lord dwells in the midst of His people. Only then, after every promise has reached its appointed fulfillment, does Scripture carry us forward toward the final consummation, when death itself is destroyed, and God makes all things new. Until that day, the promise with which we began still stands: “I am returning to Jerusalem with mercy.”
[i] All Scripture quotations are taken from the New King James Bible (NKJV) unless otherwise noted, Thomas Nelson Inc., 1982.
[ii] Matthew 24:30, Luke, 13:6, Revelation 1:7.
[iii] A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second series, translated into English with prolegomena and explanatory notes. Volumes I-VII. Under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, JD.D., LL.D., Professor of church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New York, and Henbry Wace, D.D., Principal of King’s College, London.
[iv] Dialogue with Trypho (Chapters 69-88). https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm.
[v] Lifeway Newsroom. https://news.lifeway.com/2018/02/28/more-than-a-few-evangelicals-have-jewish-friends-and-family.
