The Throne of David and the Return from Exile

"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

Luke 1:31-33

Zechariah and Elizabeth experienced the power of the God of creation to carry out His plans and fulfill His promises. Elizabeth’s body produced offspring at a time when the effects of decay had already conquered her fertility. An earlier post said that an earlier post that Elizabeth’s victory was to foreshadow God’s plan for the nation of Israel.

Important to consider, however, are God’s powers to reverse life. This sounds obvious, but part of a proper human humility before God is to recognize both His power to bring life and His power to take life—power to build and power to destroy. We tend to think of God’s works of deliverance in Egypt for Israel, the “signs and wonders”, as beautiful signposts of God’s saving ability. However the connotation of “signs and wonders” is just as negative as it is positive.  In the context of the exodus, the “signs and wonders” were given as proofs of God’s covenant faithfulness towards Israel, as well as His kingly power over all nations as the one true God. This was done by abasing the pharaoh and his country with the “signs and wonders”, thereby proving to them God’s glory. In Egypt, these consisted of great demonstrations of mastery over different parts of the land, culminating in the ability to directly take the lives of the firstborn sons of the Egyptians.

If these “signs and wonders” on behalf of Israel do not bring about the correct fear of God that leads to obedience, God promised to redirect these atrocities back at Israel herself. The curses of Deuteronomy 28 predicted various dooms for the disobedient nation, including infertility of the womb, soil and animals (v. 18), disease (v. 22), death in battle (v. 25), and boils that won’t heal (v. 35). Eventually the nation will become overrun with foreigners who oppress it, eventually leading to a seige and causing even women to eat the afterbirth and the child of her labor (v. 57). Not only will the Lord bring the diseases poured upon Egypt, but also every sickness not recorded in the book of the Law (v. 61). And all this will climax with expulsion from the land (63, 64). But Deuteronomy promises that God will be so deliberate with the expulsion that Israel will be “scattered among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other”.

The important connection here in Deuteronomy is not just the disobedience of Israel, but the connection between the decay of life and expulsion from the land. These two concepts, bound together, reflect a continuous Old Testament prophetic theme regarding the nation’s theo-political status. This connection is most potently recognizable in Ezekiel 37, between verses 1-14 where Ezekiel was commanded to prophecy to dry bones until they regain flesh and breath and life. Why were they dead? God had poured his anger on the nation, bringing about all the judgments promised in Deuteronomy and culminated them in dispersing Israel among the nations. In the previous chapter, Ezekiel revealed God’s message:

 “Son of man, when the house of Israel lived in their own land, they defiled it by their ways and their deeds. Their ways before me were like the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual impurity.

So I poured out my wrath upon them for the blood that they had shed in the land, for the idols with which they had defiled it. I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries.”

Ezekiel 36:17-19

God’s wrath against the nation brought upon it pestilence, trouble, and death, ultimately leading to the exile. Precisely at this point, God introduced the concept of a resuscitation of life from death in Ezekiel 37:1-14, where God intricately tied death and decay with exile, and conversely life and renewal with return from exile. After the initial pericope discussing the reviving of the bones, God commanded Ezekiel in Ez 37:15-28 to pick up two sticks and write on one “For Judah” and on the other “For Joseph”. The first stick was symbolic of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and the other, the lost ten tribes. God continued, saying: “And join them one to another into one stick, that they may become one in your hand. (vs 17)” He explained that this gesture referred to His plan to gather the scattered tribes of Israel from all nations, and making them one nation in the land. Central to all of this, God promised an end to the divided monarchy between northern and southern Israel, and instead announced the reestablishment of the Davidic line (v. 24). Finally, God declared that He would once again return to the land and dwell with the people (v. 27).

The connection between death and exile and life and return from exile is easily perceived. This is the logic behind 1^st century Jewish eschatology. While the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin had returned from Babylon, the other ten tribes, as prophesied, were spread to the “four winds” (Zechariah 2:6). The ingathering and reformation of all twelve tribes remained paramount in the writings of at least Isaiah (Is 11:10-16), Jeremiah (Jer 23:5-8) and Ezekiel (Ez 37:15-28). Integral to the prophetic hope of a unified Israel lies the messianic hope, that one day the throne of David would be filled.

Mary heard the announcement from the angel Gabriel that her son would “reign over the house of Jacob forever” and that “His Kingdom would have no end” (Luke 1:33). The hope of a restored Israel under a god sent messiah was as impossible as a dead man coming back to life. But as the angel reminded Mary: “nothing will be impossible with God (Luke 1:37)” 

Zechariah's Response

Who are Israel? Does the word “Israel” refer to the Church?

Luke prefaces his work with a statement of his confidence in the validity of the history he records. However, Luke has no interest in recording history  for history’s sake. Although his resources may have been more extensive than the material he includes in his writing, Luke includes only one short story from Jesus’ boyhood and then skips to his ministry. The Spirit guided Luke to select certain parts of the history surrounding the gospel to reflect on the nature and purpose of the messianic mission. Even in the womb, Jesus’ “Way” was being prepared. And while God’s sovereignty rightly causes us to see this way as unstoppable, Luke spares no means to prove to the reader how dubious and risky the whole operation was.

The first story of Luke recounts Zechariah the priest’s interaction with the angel Gabriel. With the stories of the stubbornness of Israel in mind, the reader might predict Zechariah’s response, but whenever I read Luke’s account, I am taken by surprise. In Luke 1:6, both Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth are described as “righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.” While the opening scene of Luke records the start of something new, Zechariah is an old man; age and wisdom follow him like a cloak. Upon beholding the angel Gabriel during his service in the temple, he becomes afraid. But the angel reassures Zechariah and informs him that his prayer for a child has been heard. His wife Elizabeth would soon conceive, and more than this, the child would prepare the people of Israel for the coming of the Messiah in the spirit and power of Elijah. An answer similar to Mary’s “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” in verse 38 would seem appropriate. But instead of rejoicing at the angel’s report and humbly submitting to the obviously divine message, Zechariah responds in disbelief. "Are you kidding me? I'm too old!" Is all he could say in response. For this, muteness falls upon his tongue, which will be released upon the completion of the things reported by Gabriel.

Luke’s point at issue in this short account of Zechariah’s life roots itself in actual history, but Luke is seeking to discuss the very nature of Israel as a people. The scenario described to Zechariah prefigures the one soon to be presented to Israel the nation. Let us presume that Zechariah, old man that he was, joyfully believed that his elderly wife would conceived and bear a child. Upon exiting the temple to place the blessing on the attendant multitude, would they have believed Zechariah? Perhaps he would have said: “Behold a child from my loins shall be soon born to prepare the people of Israel for the coming messiah!” Would Israel explode with joy and praise the name of the Lord for the arrival of long awaited salvation? Judging from what has already been discussed concerning Israel’s obstinacy and disbelief, they would likely have responded with incredulity to rival that of Zechariah before the angel.

Have you caught the theme yet? Zechariah and Elizabeth are old. Their bodies’ capabilities for producing life have expired. For God to fulfill the promise of a baby to Zechariah and his wife, a reversal of the effects of decay must first take place. The same is true of Israel. As a whole, the nation is rotten. For God to revive this stubborn country would be like reversing the effects of decay and bringing life from death. Luke is developing the age old problems of Israel because it is within this very specific scenario that messiah was meant to be planted. 

Who are Israel in Luke’s introduction story? What makes the most sense? The nation, Israel, would scarcely believe it if God sent an angel like Gabriel to declare the good report. As we shall see, there is hope for Zechariah, but for Israel as a whole, the nation is divided. Would Israel respond in joy and exultation to the coming messiah?

These are the questions tossing in my mind, especially meditating on the multitude waiting for Zechariah. Let us return to our two options. In a previous post I said:

“The first option is that Luke intends the reader to understand that Israel is composed of the believing Church of Christ, and God came to visit His Church. The second option suggests Luke did not have any deeper meaning. Israel means Israel and God came to visit her, and the byproduct resulted in the establishment of his believing Church.”

Does Luke have a deeper meaning in the story of Zechariah? For instance, who should we see standing and waiting for Zechariah to come out of the temple? Is the Church to be depicted as obstinate, unwilling to believe the angel’s report? Firstly my definition of the Church does not allow this. If the church is composed of those whom we call “believers,” why should she be depicted as stubborn and refusing to rejoice at the Lord’s provision? The Church is composed of the people who respond correctly to God, and is not divided. Secondly, in verse 16 the angel foretells that Zechariah’s son will turn “many” of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. If not all of Israel will turn to the Lord their God, how can she be equated with the Church? Obviously, members of the Church may be included in the multitude- that is- Believing Israel may be standing among the multitude along with Unbelieving Israel. But ultimately Luke has not yet developed anything to suggest a deeper meaning for Israel.

Israel was a Person

Israel was a person and His God’s name is YHWH. God made a covenant with Israel’s dad and grandpa, and promised to establish them as a nation, to remain in covenant with their offspring, to give them the land of Canaan, and to be their God (Gen 17:6-8). Israel had sons, and they moved to Egypt. They were called the Sons of Israel. This phrase “Sons of Israel” is quite common in the OT. It refers to the people descended from Israel. Exodus starts its first chapter with the words: “These are the names of the Sons of Israel…” So in the initial stage of the nation of Israel, the text’s meaning is quite clear: Israel refers to the nation of Israel.

On Mount Sinai, God commissions them to follow his ways and to worship Him in the land of promise. While the patriarchs had already received the rite of circumcision and other sanctifying (in the sense of setting them apart) qualities, God’s Law given on the mountain of Sinai supplied Israel with a thorough set of rules, which set the nation apart for God. This made the nation distinct from other people groups, so that even upon entering the promised land, the people remained unique. God planted Israel in the Land with what she needed to grow in to a prosperous nation who walked according to His ways and be a light to the gentile nations. What if a son of Israel rebelled against the Lord? He was cut off from the people. But what if the entire nation rebelled against the Lord?

After some time in the Land, Israel’s frequent rebellion against YHWH crumbled the nation. She had a flourish of glory under David, but this transient phase gave way to a divided monarchy. Moving farther away from their God, Israel was cast into exile for her sins. Her temple was destroyed, the monarchy ended, and the people scattered abroad to foreign gentile nations.

During this confusing time, a line begins to be drawn, a redefinition of Israel where we would not expect it- within Israel itself. Here is where we learn an extremely important concept, namely the “remnant”. The word remnant in Hebrew has a punitive ring to it. Its basic meaning refers to that which is not destroyed, the survivors, the ones who are left from some great disaster. It was for instance used to describe the remaining people not destroyed in the conquest of Canaan (Deut 3:11 for instance). God had pronounced judgment on the nations living in Canaan, and commanded the Israelites to destroy them upon entering the Land. Noah’s family also, for instance, could be thought of as a remnant, or survivor of the pagan rebellious pre-flood world. Enslaved Israel, rescued from the wrath of God upon Egypt retained the qualities of a remnant. Theologically, the remnant is composed of those who fear the Lord and find refuge in Him during the day of His wrath.

Eventually the word became a proper name referring to a  particular set of righteous Jews. Some first century Jewish sects, such as the Qumran desert community, saw themselves as a group destined to be God righteous remnant, reviving the glory of Israel. True, the nation had been made desolate and under the rule of a foreign power, but the Qumran remnant sought to nevertheless exist, faithful to God’s covenant. And someday, this group hoped it would be the building block of the restored Israel, after which the messianic age would occur, with the Qumran remnant vindicated with the rest of the faithful remnant from ancient times of Abraham Isaac, and Jacob. The Kingly Messiah, having arrived in splendor, would rule in peace and prosperity, though all those, Jew or Gentile, disobedient to God’s Sovereign rule be destroyed.

In Isaiah 10:20-23 God describes the remnant as a diminished amount of the whole of Israel. Although the nation of Israel be as numerous as sand, the remnant will not include all the nation. The return of the Remnant to the Promised Land will be likened to the exodus from Egypt as in Isaiah 11:16. Jeremiah 23 describes the remnant of a scattered flock, whom the Lord will gather and provide shepherds over them. Jeremiah 31:17-21 speaks of the remnant like a disciplined youth returning to his loving father. And later in the same chapter, verse 27, the Lord speaks of sowing the house of Israel like seed.

The remnant is believing Israel; the Israel that is responsive and humbled by the discipline of the Lord, who look to Him and call for His mercy for the nation. The part of the nation that does not return and is not responsive is unbelieving Israel.

So here we have a more defined picture of what Luke presents in his first chapter. Zechariah, at first disbelieves the angel’s report. Why? Because it is incredible. But it is hard to say which part of the angel’s message was more incredible, birth from a barren woman or the coming of a man who would turn the “Sons of Israel” to the Lord their God. The outcome of his disbelief is dumbness, muteness. How could the word of the angel be true? But when the unfruitful womb brings forth life, Zechariah believes the angel’s report, and instead of a mute tongue, his mouth is opened, and opened to prophesy. Zechariah says: this is it, the Lord has begun his work, His salvation is come, and the remnant shall return, like the exodus, as he promised to Israel’s father and grandfather.

Zechariah does not know what to expect at this point in the story. There is more to the gospel than Zechariah understands, but I do not think Luke wants us to understand any farther at this point in his narrative. It is very easy to read the end into the beginning, but patience bears many children.

A hope is presented to the reader, is now the time for the remnant of the believing Sons of Israel to return?

But what about the believing gentiles? Are they part of believing Israel? Luke addresses these exact questions.

Who are Israel?

Who are Israel? and Who did God come to visit? I want tackle this question a little at a time through Luke’s work. I do not think the answer needs to be the one and the same. Let us take the first two chapters of Luke’s gospel and ponder on two streams of thought. I am going to address two options, which immediately present themselves. There very well may be more. The first option is that Luke intends the reader to understand that Israel is the believing Church of Christ, and God came to visit His Church. The second option suggests Luke did not have any deeper meaning. Israel means Israel and God came to visit her, and the byproduct resulted in the establishment of his believing Church.

The first option necessitates an abstraction of the term Israel. This reuses what (for instance) Zechariah might have thought about the liberation of Israel. Perhaps Zechariah’s nationalistic understanding of Israel is an incomplete understanding, so Luke uses Zechariah’s primitive understanding to describe the Church, a concept he would not understand at his stage in history. This line of thought assumes the reader has a certain degree of information about ecclesiology available before the reading the gospel. The reader must have an understanding of the typological nature of Israel and its relation to the Church. So Luke may well mention Israel, but the reader, as many modern readers, may be thinking of the Church. And God did in fact come to liberate the Church. So when we read that God is coming to visit Israel, we may read into the story that God is coming to visit the Church. That is option one.

However, leaning toward our second option, we find this hard to support if we restrict ourselves to the first two chapters of Luke, who therein puts forth no effort to redirect the reader from assuming he is referring to national Israel. For example, noting that Zechariah descended from the line of Abijah, a priest named in the roll of Nehemiah’s covenant renewal document (Neh 9:38, 10:7), and later including Zechariah’s prophecy of Israel’s liberation, and straight through to Simeon’s prophecy speaking of the “glory to your people Israel” in 2:32, there seems to be no clues to suggest Luke wants us to understand the word “Israel” in any way other that national Israel, at least in the first two chapters. That is option two.

I will not say here for certain that the word “Israel” in Luke-Acts is static. Perhaps Luke intends to take the reader on a reunderstanding of the term by the end of his work. Perhaps not. I want to dig into these first to chapters, and take the road slow. Our understanding developed in the gospel is integral to the way we understand its sequel, Acts.

Visitation

I shall take Luke as the author of both the gospel by his own name as well as the Acts of the Apostles. In writing his gospel, he recorded an account of God’s visitation to the people of Israel. The word which Luke used can be translated “visit” from Greek, but also makes one think of an older brother or a father coming to make sure his kid brother or son is ok. It means to regard or to inspect. The NT uses a version of this word to speak of “overseer” in the organization of the Church. But the Greek OT also uses this word. God had “visited”, or gave regard to His people long ago, before the time of Luke. Long ago before Ezekiel, David and Samuel. His coming was a big deal for the Hebrews enslaved in Egypt, who, crying out in anguish for many years, likely wondered if the ancient promises to Abraham and his descendants would ever be fulfilled. So when He finally shows up after 400 years or so of enslavement in Exodus 2:24, it is a moment of epic importance. When the people of Israel hear of the Lord’s interaction with Moses and see His signs and wonders, Exodus 4:31 says the people “believed”.  They understood that the Lord “had visited” (ESV) the sons of Israel or “was concerned” (NASB) with them. Finally God had come to free them from their enemies so that they might serve Him without fear. Similarly, Luke records another moment of visitation. When all hope was lost for the sons of Israel, and (as we shall see) for the world, he gathers us in to hear of this climax of moments. According to the opening chapter of Luke, Zechariah the priest prophesied aloud to his hearers: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed His people” (Luke 1:68).  Zechariah’s hope reflects that of the pre-exodus enslaved Israel when he goes on to proclaim the arrival of the “mercy promised to (his) fathers” (Luke 1:72). 

Dispensationalism and Israel's Future

I want to talk about the future of Israel and the many surrounding issues. We as humans need shelter, a fit place to lodge ourselves, and along with certain other minds I shall pitch my tent in the realm of Dispensationalism. I cannot say that I always agree with how things are run here, but I am content with the environment. If you are a curious passer-by, and wonder why I think thoughts that would associate with the oft-loved oft-hated “Left Behind Series”, give me your ear and your patience. The following blog suggests a discussion concerning Israel’s future in the context of both the Gospel According to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. The content of this blog will revolve around Luke’s use of the word “Israel”, and discuss whether or not the term remains static throughout or reforms to include gentile believers. I have done some research already in this area and I feel the need to exercise my thoughts once more concerning this topic.

So feel free to throw stones at my place of shelter. A few forewarnings, however. I am currently limiting this blog to the study of Luke-Acts. Any quotations and the context thereof is fair game as well. 

-jeremy