Who is Israel? (Part 2) A Historic Premillennial view of Israel
Can there be a Future for Israel Without a Great Divide
If dispensationalism draws a bold line between Israel and the Church, historic premillennialism reaches for something more integrated, a way of saying: yes, God still has plans for Israel… but no, we’re not running two different stories here.
This view shares one thing in common with dispensationalism: the belief in a literal millennial reign of Jesus on the earth, drawn from Revelation 20. But where it differs, and where it carves out space for nuance, is in how it sees the relationship between the Church and Israel.
Rather than imagining two separate peoples of God (Israel on one track, the Church on another), historic premillennialists see one unified family, all saved by grace through Jesus. Jew and Gentile, brought together in the Messiah. One olive tree, two grafted branches.
And yet, and this is key, many still expect a significant future role for ethnic Israel. They believe the story of the Jewish people isn’t over. That there will be a large-scale turning to Jesus among the Jewish people before the end of the age. Romans 11 becomes a major anchor here(which we will cover later): “And in this way all Israel will be saved” (v. 26). Not as a separate entity. Not by a separate gospel. But through the same Messiah, in the same grace, becoming part of the same people.
This is where people like John Piper land, premillennial in view, yet adamant that the Church is one body. You’ll find others in this space too: George Eldon Ladd, Craig Blomberg, D. A. Carson, scholars who affirm that while God’s promises to Israel weren’t revoked, their fulfillment is found in Christ and inclusion into His Body.
Sam Storms, though amillennial, captures it well: “There is only one people of God, the Church, comprised of believing Jews and believing Gentiles.”
That’s the heart of historic premillennialism. No replacement. No abandonment. No division. Just a God who keeps His promises, a people who will be brought home, and a Church made richer when the original branches are grafted back in (Romans 11:23–24).
Some in this camp are more open on the “land” question. They’re less likely to say Israel will rule politically from Jerusalem during the millennium, and more inclined to see the land promise stretched to the whole earth in the age to come. Others still hold out for something more specific, a literal Zion, a reign of Jesus over restored Israel, with the nations streaming to worship (Isaiah 60, Zechariah 14).
But the defining mark of this view is its refusal to divide the people of God into two eternal tracks. There’s one Shepherd. One flock. One family.
And in the end, Israel doesn’t reappear to sit alongside the Church. She returns to join her.
Evaluating Historic Premillennialism: The Beauty of the Both/And
Historic premillennialism is considered a Goldilocks position for a lot of people, not too divided, not too vague, but trying to hold together what Scripture seems to be saying from both directions. It honors the integrity of the Old Testament promises while refusing to break up the unity Jesus came to establish.
Where It Shines: The Strengths of Historic Premillennialism
One of the clearest strengths of historic premillennialism is how it takes Romans 11 in. When Paul says, “all Israel will be saved,” this isn’t a footnote, it’s the heartbeat of the eschatological vision. This framework doesn’t reroute the promise into another theological track or spiritual construct. It reads Romans 9–11 as part of one continuous story in which Christ is central and the Jewish people remain deeply entwined in the unfolding narrative.
There’s an elegance in how this view holds both continuity and distinction. It doesn’t erase Israel, but neither does it establish them above the Church. Instead, it sees a future for ethnic Israel, joining the Church, the olive tree image in Romans 11 isn’t dismissed; it’s explained. Israel’s Old Testament identity is honored. The Church’s unity is preserved. Grace through Jesus is for the Church, and yet Jewish branches still get grafted back in.
That makes this worldview poetically coherent. It preserves covenant loyalty, the sense that God promised Abraham, David, and their descendants something real, but it also avoids turning the Church into an afterthought. In this view, God’s mercy reaches both Jew and Gentile, and the ultimate apotheosis of that mercy is the grand reunion at the end. No dispensational dislocation. Just heaven-ordained redemption coming full circle.
There’s also something deeply theological and scripturally rooted about holding space for Israel without nullifying the Church. It affirms that God’s promises are conditional and progressive, fulfilled in Christ yet not utterly forgotten. For instance, prophetic passages like Isaiah 60 or Zechariah 12 are taken seriously, they speak of Zion’s future glory. And yet, they’re not made exclusive: they poetically prefigure the global worship movement that begins at Pentecost and intensifies through the ages.
This isn’t a sloppy cliché or exclusivist theology. It’s born out of grappling with text: the Old Testament passages, the shaping of the New Testament, and the unity that emerges in Jesus. As one overview of historic premillennialism observes, it’s a system that “recognizes the Kingdom of God has already been inaugurated with the resurrection and ascension of Christ, but is not yet fully realized on earth.”
It also keeps a hermeneutical balance. It takes the plain sense of Hebrew and Greek, but it doesn’t insist that every symbol in the Old Testament must remain tied to a national Israel. It reads typology with care recognizing patterns and promises but holds firm that interpretation should be consistent. It doesn’t collapse into allegory, and it doesn’t retreat into staunch literalism. Instead, it lets the Bible’s layers join cohesively together.
Finally, in this crazy day and age, this theology helps us breathe again. We can affirm that God made promises to all of Abraham’s family, and we’re not letting go. But we also believe those promises are fulfilled in Christ alone, drawing all people, whether Jew or Gentile, into the same redemptive people, unified by one blood and one Spirit.
in Summary:
Historic Premillennialism’s strengths show up in what it honors:
Covenantal Continuity: It keeps the long story of God’s promises intact, from Abraham to Christ, without skipping over Israel or collapsing everything into the Church.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment: Jesus is central. Israel and the Church converge in Him, not as separate destinies, but as one plan fulfilled in the Messiah.
Hope for Israel, Humility for the Church: It offers a future for ethnic Israel, not as privilege, but as mercy, and reminds the Church she was grafted in by grace.
Prophetic Openness: It doesn’t over-speculate. It lets mystery breathe and trusts God to fulfill His word in His way.
Narrative Tension: It honors the unfolding drama, already but not yet, without forcing premature conclusions or erasing the early chapters.
Where Historic Premillennialism struggles
Some of those on the side of Historic premillennialism will say it carries a quiet humility. It refuses to erase Israel from the redemptive story and earnestly seeks to hold the tension between the rooted promises of the Old Testament and the surprising fulfillment that breaks through in the New. It says, “Yes, Israel still has a place,” but resists spelling that out in political detail. Unlike dispensationalism, which lays out a blueprint with borders, temples, and timeframes, historic premillennialism keeps the edges soft. It believes Israel will turn to Christ, but when asked what that means exactly, it offers a holy shrug and says, “We’ll see.”
Some find that ambiguity refreshing. It feels like reverence, an admission that we see in part. But others see it as a deflection. To the dispensationalist, it might sound like backing down: “If you’re going to say God’s not done with Israel, then say it loud, land, throne, kingdom, all of it.” Meanwhile, to those from a covenantal or amillennial tradition, it might sound like dragging old national categories back into a story Christ has already fulfilled. They point to Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews, and the epistles and ask why are we acting like we’re still waiting for promises to be fulfilled?
In that way, historic premillennialism ends up standing in the middle of two worlds. It doesn’t dismiss the Old Testament promises, but it also doesn’t wrap them up in a neat eschatological chart. It believes Israel has a future, but resists turning that future into a flag or a headline. And maybe that’s what makes it both difficult and beautiful. It’s a framework that waits. That listens. That leaves room for a turning yet to come.
Still, critics point out some real tensions.
One of the biggest is how this view handles interpretation. Historic premillennialism often reads Revelation 20 literally, a thousand-year reign, a visible return of Christ to rule the nations. But when it approaches Old Testament texts about Israel, the land, the throne, the temple, it becomes more symbolic. And that shift in gears raises questions. If we’re going to say we follow a historical-grammatical method, can we really pick and choose when to read literally and when to read spiritually? Critics argue that this inconsistency creates interpretive wobble. The method starts to feel less like a compass and more like a patchwork.
Defenders then will say Historic premillennialism doesn’t just toss around the literal vs. symbolic debate, it grounds it in Scripture. The aim isn’t to force everything into one category, but to let the Bible be the plumb line. If the New Testament clearly redefines something, like the land becoming a heavenly country in Hebrews, or the temple now referring to Jesus and His people, then we follow that lead. But if Scripture doesn’t reinterpret it, we hold it as it stands. In other words, what God redefines, we spiritualize. What He doesn’t, we leave literal.
There’s also a tension with covenant theology. Historic premillennialism doesn’t fit cleanly into the Reformed system. Its post-tribulation resurrection, its vision of a future millennium, and its belief in a renewed role for Israel all bump against the confessional grid. Some worry it reopens theological categories the Reformation tried to close, categories that separated Israel from the Church too sharply. They ask, “If Christ is the fulfillment of the covenants, why are we still looking for national distinction in the age to come?”
So yes, historic premillennialism also has its struggles. It doesn’t offer the precision of dispensationalism or the covenantal flattening of amillennialism. But many will say that’s its strength. It lives in the tension between what God promised and what God has fulfilled. It doesn’t try to collapse everything into the now, nor does it push everything off into a speculative future. It watches. It waits. And it keeps looking to Jesus as the One in whom every mystery finds its meaning, even the ones we haven’t fully understood yet.
How Coherent Is It, Really?
If we’re asking how well this view holds up across the arc of Scripture Old Testament promises, New Testament fulfillment, the unity of the Body, and God’s covenant integrity, ai gives it a coherence score around 85%.
It’s grounded. It’s generous. It honors the text. It leaves space for Israel’s redemption without breaking the Church into two peoples. It’s a story where the ending still belongs to Jesus, but where the Jewish people get to return, not as a theological footnote, but as part of the final crescendo of grace.
And if there’s still some ambiguity around land, temple, or the nature of the millennial reign? That’s ok to most in the Historic Premillennialism camp.
Additional Reading on the subject
Ladd, George Eldon
The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Eerdmans, 1974). Seminal work on inaugurated eschatology.
A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Eerdmans, 1972). Classic historic premillennial interpretation of Revelation.
Moo, Douglas J. & Blomberg, Craig L. (editors)
A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to “Left Behind” Eschatology (Baker Academic, 2009). A collection of essays defending and clarifying the position.
One Pilgrim’s Progress (blog) — “Classic Historic Premillennial Works.” Lists foundational authors like James Montgomery Boice and Andrew Bonar.
Christian History Magazine — “Historic Premillennialism” (Dana Netherton, 1999). A useful historical survey
Bibliography
Desiring God. “An Evening of Eschatology.” Roundtable discussing millennial views (including Sam Storms, Jim Hamilton, Doug Moo), hosted by John Piper .
Piper, John. “John Piper Backs Professor’s End Times Theory of Premillennialism.” Christian Post, Dec 7, 2017. Piper affirms premillennialism with a post-tribulational view and sees value in historic premillennialism .
Puritan Board. “Question on Historic (post‑trib) Premillennialism.” Dean Davis summarizes the New Covenant form of historic premillennialism .
Wikipedia. “Historic premillennialism.” Notes key proponents, including Piper, Ladd, Carson, and provides historical roots .
Faith Reflections. “The Millennium: Four Views and Their Spiritual Implications.” Highlights historic premillennialism’s rejection of ethnic Israel focus during the millennium .
Internet Archive. Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative by Sam Storms. Includes: “There is only one people of God, the Church, comprised of believing Jews and… Gentiles”
Sam Storms. “10 Things You Should Know About Race and Racism.” Emphasizes unity in diversity: “only one people of God… one kingdom of priests” .
Dr. Reluctant. “Deciphering Covenant Theology.” Quotes Storms and Greg Beale on one olive tree (true Israel) in Galatians 3:29 .
Always Reforming. “John Piper and the Question of the Rapture.” Includes Piper’s post-tribulational rapture stance and hermeneutical clarity
Piper, John. Five Reasons I Believe Romans 11:26 Means a Future Conversion for Israel. Desiring God, February 16, 2012.
Includes the statement: “I take this to mean that someday the nation as a whole … will be converted to Christ and join the Christian church and be saved.”