Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30: New Testament Evidence for the Restoration of the Nation Israel

Those who hold to replacement theology often claim that the New Testament is silent concerning the idea of a restoration of the nation Israel. But is the New Testament really silent on this matter? Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30 appear to be two passages among several that offer explicit New Testament evidence in favor of a restoration of the nation Israel. Matthew 19:28states:

And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

“And you are those who have stood by Me in My trials; and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:30).

So what are these passages teaching? It appears that Jesus in both of them is affirming the Old Testament hope concerning a restoration of the nationIsrael. As Robert Saucy points out, “Support for a future restoration of Israel is seen in Christ’s statements that his disciples would sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel in the kingdom (Mt 19:28; Lk 22:30).”[1] He also says, “These statements about the position of the disciples over the twelve tribes of Israel in the future reign of Christ therefore not only look to the future kingdom, but also affirm a future for the nation of Israel.”[2]

Others have come to similar conclusions concerning these two texts. In his discussion of the term basileiva, Karl Ludwig Schmidt asserts that Jesus shared the hope of his Jewish contemporaries of a national restoration of Israel. He believes this because of Jesus’ words in Matt 19:28 and Luke 22:29–30:

Even where national and political hopes were not to the fore, but salvation was expected for the whole world in the last time, His [Jesus’] contemporaries still thought it important that there should be a place of privilege for Israel. Israel was to arise with new glory, and the scattered tribes, and indeed the Gentiles, were to stream towards the new Jerusalem. Jesus shares this hope. He gives to His disciples, the twelve, as representatives of the twelve tribes of the people of God, the holy people, judicial and administrative office in the reign of God (Mt. 19:28 = Lk. 22:29f.).[3]

Is it possible, though, that Jesus is referring to the church in Matt 19:28? Are the “twelve tribes” representative of a new people of God that transcends ethnic distinctions?[4] The answer is, No. As Robert H. Gundry says, “Neither in Jesus’ intention nor in Matthew’s does ‘Israel’ mean the church.”[5] Anthony J. Saldarini argues that Jesus was speaking of ethnic Jews in Matt 19:28.[6] In fact, Saldarini alleges that the attempt to identify Israel with the church is a distortion of the message of Matthew:

Many commentators automatically interpret the words “people” and “Israel” theologically, understanding by these terms those who are called by God to be his special people and are given the promises and the covenants. They then contrast the old covenant people with the new people, or new Israel or church. . . .We will argue that this salvation-history scheme, with its tendentious reading of words and its use of non-Matthean categories, distorts the gospel.[7]

M. Eugene Boring has argued that the view that the church is the newIsrael in Matt 19:28 is a “misinterpretation.”[8] He also states, “The concept of the church as the ‘new Israel’ is foreign to Matthew, who always uses ‘Israel’ in the empirical sense. Because even eschatologically restored Israel must be judged and sorted out like the church, the church is not simply identified withIsrael.”[9]

Thus, we agree with Scot McKnight when he notes that Matt 19:28 is evidence that “Jesus envisioned a kingdom” that focused on “temple, law, and land,”—a “realistic vision for God’s chosen nation, Israel.”[10] We also conclude with E. P. Sanders that Matthew 19:28 “confirms the view that Jesus looked for the restoration of Israel.”[11]

The same is true for Luke’s gospel. When it comes to the issue of the church, Arthur W. Wainwright points out that Luke “never explicitly calls it ‘Israel,’ and there is not good reason to suppose that when he speaks of the restoration of Israel he is alluding to the Church. He is referring to the Jewish nation.” [12] According to Jacob Jervell, “The concept ‘Israel’ is never used by Luke as a term for a church made up of Jews and Gentiles.”[13]

Peter K. Nelson comes to a similar conclusion concerning Luke 22. As he observes, the reference to the “twelve tribes” in 22:30 is not a reference to the church but to the Jewish people. As he points out, there is no use of “Israel” in the Synoptics or Acts “which does not refer to the Jewish people/nation, theIsrael of the OT. . . . Thus it does not appear that Luke attaches a new Christian meaning to the various terms and phrases that have traditionally been used to describe Israel of old (contrast Gal 6:16).”[14] Thus, in light of Luke’s literal sense of “Israel,” Luke 22:30 is probably speaking of national Israel:

It is best to take the “twelve tribes of Israel” in Luke 22:30b as referring to the Israel of the OT, the people of God. Luke does not envision a new Israelwhich becomes marked off from Israel of old, but an Israel which has returned to its roots and whose Messiah has come welcoming all who would repent and believe.[15]

The significance of Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30 should not be missed. These texts explicitly show that the New Testament teaches a restoration of the nation Israel. Thus, the New Testament in actuality is not silent about Israel’s restoration. Addressing the alleged silence of the New Testament regarding Israel’s restoration, Arnold Fruchtenbaum correctly writes: “Jesus was not totally silent as Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:29–30 illustrates.”[16]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface BetweenDispensational & Nondispensational Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993) 267.

[3] Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “Basileia,” in TDNT, vol. 1, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 586.

[4] For two examples of those who hold this perspective see David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 284 and R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985; reprint, 1987), 288.

[5] Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Arts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 393.

[6] Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of

[8] M. Eugene Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew,” The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 8 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 392. In his thoughts on Matthew 19:28, H. A. W. Meyer says, “It is a mistake, therefore, to take the people of Israel as intended to represent the people of God in the Christian sense.” Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospel of Matthew, trans. Peter Christie (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1890), 347.

[10] Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teaching of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 83.

[12] Arthur W. Wainwright, “Luke and the Restoration of the Kingdom to Israel,” Expository Times 89 (1977): 76.

[13] Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke–Acts (Augsburg: Fortress, 1972; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 72, n. 22.

[14] Peter K. Nelson, Leadership and Discipleship: A Study of Luke 22:24–30, SBL Dissertation Series 138 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 221–22.

[16] Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1994), 203.

When it comes to the issue of the church, Arthur W. Wainwright points out that Luke “never explicitly calls it ‘Israel,’ and there is not good reason to suppose that when he speaks of the restoration of Israel he is alluding to the Church. He is referring to the Jewish nation.” [12] According to Jacob Jervell, “The concept ‘Israel’ is never used by Luke as a term for a church made up of Jews and Gentiles.”[13]

To: Alamo-Girl; Amityschild; AngieGal; AnimalLover; Ann de IL; aposiopetic; aragorn; auggy; ...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.