Fulfilment Without Forfeiture: Why End-Time Prophecy Still Concerns Israel
Pastor Leslie Chua
“As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.”
Recently, I came across several new arguments asserting that End-Time Bible prophecies must be interpreted solely through the lens of the church rather than through the lens of Israel, though this does not preclude the salvation of many Jews at the end of this present age. Essentially, Israel is irrelevant. Otherwise, it muddies the interpretive waters and distorts one’s eschatological perspective. So, it is imperative to scrutinise all Old Testament End-Time prophecies through the New Testament Scriptural lens.
Broadly, the question is this: does the New Testament transfer Israel’s national and prophetic future to the Church, or does it incorporate Gentiles into the Abrahamic blessing while leaving Israel’s distinct national promises intact and awaiting fulfilment?
I will list the 5 arguments against Israel's relevance and then examine their flaws in my counterarguments.
Conditionality
First, conditionality. Deuteronomy 28 makes Israel’s covenant blessings conditional on obedience; disobedience forfeits them, as shown in Jonah’s Nineveh oracle, which indicates that God’s actions change in response to human conduct.
This argument applies to the covenant it describes, but God’s other covenants with Israel must also be considered.
The Deuteronomy 28 covenant is explicitly bilateral and conditional – if Israel obeyed, it would receive covenant blessings, but if it disobeyed, it would incur covenant curses.
However, Scripture presents at least 4 distinct covenants with Israel, and the Abrahamic (Genesis 15, 17), Davidic (2 Samuel 7), and New (Jeremiah 31) covenants are unilateral grants rather than conditional treaties.
Take the Abrahamic covenant, for example. In Genesis 15, God put Abraham to sleep and passed alone between the divided animals. In the ancient Near Eastern treaty format, both parties walked through the cut pieces of an animal, each invoking the penalty upon themselves. In this case, however, God walked alone. Abraham's future conduct was deliberately excluded from the conditions.
____________________________________________
Conditionality governs Israel's enjoyment of blessing in any given generation, but it does not govern the irrevocability of God’s covenant.
____________________________________________
More decisively, the Torah itself anticipates Israel's disobedience and states the consequence — and the consequence is not forfeiture: "Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God" (Leviticus 26:44).
Deuteronomy follows the same pattern: chapters 28–29 pronounce the curses, while chapter 30:1–10 promises restoration, including regathering from the nations and circumcision of the heart. Conditionality governs Israel's enjoyment of blessing in any given generation, but it does not govern the irrevocability of God’s covenant.
As for Jonah — Nineveh received a conditional prophetic warning, not a covenant. Warnings are inherently conditional. Reading a Gentile city's reprieve as a template for annulling a sworn covenant conflates 2 distinct categories of divine dealing.
On Matthew 21 and 23
Second, Jesus announced a covenantal transition on 2 occasions: “your house is left to you desolate” (Matthew 23:38) and “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit” (Matthew 21:43).
Matthew identifies who the "you" refers to. 2 verses later, we read that "the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his (Jesus') parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them" (21:45). This Parable of the Tenants is aimed at the custodians of the vineyard, not the vineyard itself. Israel's leadership forfeited stewardship; that is a judgment on the leaders, not the dissolution of a people.
____________________________________________
Notice the caveat – "until." Jesus tells Jerusalem that a day will come when it welcomes Him again. This implies that the severance is not permanent; it is a deferred reunion.
____________________________________________
And Matthew 23 does not end at verse 38. The very next verse is the interpretive key: "For I tell you, you (referring to Jerusalem) will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord'" (Matthew 23:39).
Notice the caveat – "until." Jesus tells Jerusalem that a day will come when it welcomes Him again. This implies that the severance is not permanent; it is a deferred reunion. Luke frames the same period in the same way: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (Luke 21:24). Both texts describe an interval with a terminus.
On Galatians 3
Third, Galatians 3:26–29 defines Abraham's seed as those united with Christ, so covenant identity is no longer ethnic. Romans 2:28–29 and Philippians 3:3 support this view.
Galatians 3:26-29 (NIV) - So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Everything asserted here is true. However, the conclusion drawn from it is incorrect. Paul’s argument is that Gentiles are included in the Abrahamic blessings without circumcision. He is not arguing that Jews are excluded from anything. Addition is not subtraction.
____________________________________________
Reading Galatians 3 as a comprehensive redefinition that the church has replaced Israel is incorrect. It asks the passage to settle a question it never raises.
____________________________________________
Notice also which promise is in view. Galatians 3 concerns justification by faith and the blessing of the Spirit (Galatians 3:14) — not land, not throne, not national restoration. Paul focuses on only a single aspect of the Abrahamic covenant – “in you shall all nations be blessed" (Galatians 3:8-9; Genesis 12:3) – and shows it extending to the Gentile world. He does not address the territorial or national aspects. Reading Galatians 3 as a comprehensive redefinition that the church has replaced Israel is incorrect. It asks the passage to settle a question it never raises.
Romans 2:28-29 (NIV) - A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.
This is another passage often cited to argue that covenant identity is no longer ethnic. But notice what Paul says about his unbelieving Jewish kinsmen several chapters later: "Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises” (Romans 9:4). Not "theirs was." Why? Because ethnic Israel's covenantal promises and privileges had been transferred elsewhere.
On 1 Peter 2
Fourth, 1 Peter 2:4–10 applies Israel's titles — chosen people, royal priesthood, holy nation — to the Church, marking a covenantal shift.
Being given the same calling and privileges as someone else does not mean you have taken their place or displaced them. This is the basis of the flawed argument, and it is worth stating plainly, because Scripture repeatedly extends Israel's calling and privileges to other peoples without ever removing those privileges from Israel.
____________________________________________
Being given the same calling and privileges as someone else does not mean you have taken their place or displaced them.
____________________________________________
Isaiah 19:25 is the clearest instance – The Lord Almighty will bless them, saying, “Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.”
God calls Egypt "my people" and Assyria "my handiwork" — and in the same sentence still calls Israel "my inheritance." 3 titles, 3 recipients, yet no substitution. Isaiah 56 does something similar, bringing foreigners to God's holy mountain and promising them a name better than sons and daughters (56:5). In both cases, the pattern is an expansion of covenant privilege, not a transfer of it from Israel to another.
When Peter calls his readers a chosen people and a holy nation, he is working within that established pattern rather than breaking from it. These titles come from Exodus 19:6, where God first addressed Israel at Sinai. Applying them to a wider community that includes Gentiles was God’s intention all along, as announced by the prophets; this is not evidence that Israel, the original recipients, have been set aside.
____________________________________________
So, contrary to the flawed argument, there is no covenantal shift. Instead of replacing Israel, the church has been subsumed within Israel, becoming part of its commonwealth.
____________________________________________
The Church shares Israel’s calling. This is logical, as Paul says to the Ephesian church, “remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Ephesians 2:12-13 - ESV).
So, contrary to the flawed argument, there is no covenantal shift. Instead of replacing Israel, the church has been subsumed within Israel, becoming part of its commonwealth.
On the One Olive Tree
Fifth, Romans 11 presents one olive tree and one covenant community — not 2 peoples of God. Therefore, End-Time prophecy must be interpreted through the lens of the church, not Israel.
The first half is correct and important: there is one tree and one salvation. However, the conclusion is deeply flawed because it overlooks the rest of the text in Romans 11.
Verses 17-21 explain that the olive tree and its root are metaphors for Israel, and the natural branches likewise. By contrast, Gentile believers are pictured as wild olive shoots grafted in. The church is not the tree and will never be. The natural branches were broken off because of unbelief, so that the wild branches could be grafted in.
Verses 23-24 settle the question of whether ethnic distinction endures. Paul says that the Jewish branches will be “grafted back into their own olive tree” on the condition that “they do not continue in their unbelief”.
Paul does not stop there but goes on to provide the eschatological timing of when this will occur: “Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Romans 11:25).
Paul then quotes Isaiah 59:20–21: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins” (Romans 11:26-27). This is covenant language for a national, not merely an individual, restoration.
The Underlying Question
Beneath these 5 exchanges lies a single question about the character of God. If a covenant sworn by a unilateral oath, sealed while the human party (Abraham) slept, and reaffirmed by the prophets can be redirected to a different recipient (the church), the reliability of divine promises is called into question.
Paul was aware of the evolving Replacement Theology of his time and anticipated that the issue would persist. That is why he answered his own question – "Did God reject his people?" – in the plainest possible language – “God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew” (Romans 11:1-2). He concluded his argument with a strong assertion – “as far as election is concerned, they (the Jews) are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Romans 11:28-29). The Greek word is ametamelētos, meaning there is no exception clause.
____________________________________________
Accordingly, prophecies must be read and interpreted without conflating ethnic Israel with the Church. The two entities play vastly different roles in God’s End-Time programmes.
____________________________________________
Fulfilment in Christ is real and glorious. But fulfilment is not forfeiture. The promises made to Israel are expanded in Christ to include the Gentiles, yet they are not taken away from the people to whom they were sworn.
Accordingly, prophecies must be read and interpreted without conflating ethnic Israel with the Church. The two entities play vastly different roles in God’s End-Time programmes.