I’ve written and argued this point several times before, and for me, it really doesn’t take more than a careful reading of Matthew 24 to see that the second coming of Jesus is a Judeo-centric event. It is Jerusalem that He mourns over. It is to Zion that He returns. And it is Israel’s national turning that serves as the hinge point of redemptive history.
Nevertheless, I want to comment here on a valuable article by Michael J. Vlach titled Israel’s Repentance and the Kingdom of God (MSJ 27/1, Spring 2016). While Vlach and I might not agree on everything—he is Reformed in his soteriology, whereas I affirm Free Grace theology—his work on Israel and eschatology is consistently solid, balanced, and well documented. This article in particular highlights what many seem to miss: the prophetic pattern that links Israel’s national repentance with the coming of the kingdom and the return of the Messiah.
A crucial and often ignored contingency
The main argument Vlach presents is this: the coming of the earthly, mediatorial kingdom is contingent upon Israel’s national repentance. This is not salvation by merit, nor is it about works-based acceptance. It is about how God has set conditions in history for the unfolding of His kingdom plan. The kingdom’s arrival awaits Israel’s collective return to her Messiah.
This point is far too often dismissed in systems that either ignore Israel or collapse its promises into the Church. Kim Riddlebarger, for example, insists that “the New Testament knows nothing of a kingdom offered and kingdom withdrawn according to the whims of unbelieving Israel.” But Vlach rightly challenges this, showing from both Testaments that Israel’s repentance remains a key condition for the kingdom’s arrival.
Prophetic logic and national repentance
Jeremiah 18 provides the foundation for the principle of national contingency: God responds to how nations act. If a nation turns from evil, judgment can be withheld. If a nation turns away from righteousness, blessings can be delayed. This isn’t an arbitrary mechanism; it’s a moral framework. Jonah 3 proves the point—Nineveh repented, and the judgment didn’t fall. No surprise there.
This pattern is repeated all over the Hebrew Scriptures with reference to Israel. Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 30, 2 Chronicles 7, Jeremiah 3–4, Hosea 3 and 5—all of them draw a straight line between repentance and restoration. And crucially, these promises are not limited to spiritual blessings. They include the land, prosperity, peace, and the presence of God—all kingdom realities, rooted in the Abrahamic covenant.
What Vlach makes refreshingly clear is that repentance doesn’t earn the kingdom; it prepares Israel to receive what God has long intended to give. Israel’s turning is not a payment—it is the turning point.
The kingdom offer in the Gospels
This pattern doesn’t disappear in the New Testament. John the Baptist and Jesus preach the same core message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This wasn’t moralism. It was a national call echoing the prophets: return (shuv) to the Lord so that the promised kingdom may come.
When Jesus weeps over Jerusalem in Luke 19, it is not merely out of pathos. It is because the conditions for national peace were there, had they only been met. “If you had known on this day…” But they didn’t, and judgment followed. In Matthew 23:39, Jesus speaks of a future recognition: “You will not see Me again until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’” That is a conditional statement. It implies that His return is held back until national Israel welcomes Him as Messiah.
Acts 3 and the re-offer of the kingdom
Many argue that Israel forfeited their chance in the Gospels. But Peter’s sermon in Acts 3 suggests otherwise. Speaking to the very people who rejected Jesus, Peter declares that if they repent and return, their sins will be wiped away and the “times of refreshing” will come—language referring not just to forgiveness, but to the kingdom itself. He even adds, “and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you.”
The sequence is unmistakable: repentance → forgiveness → the kingdom → the return of the King. Vlach correctly notes that Peter’s grammar reflects contingency. The arrival of the kingdom is not inevitable on a set timeline. It hinges on Israel’s response.
Paul and the fullness of Israel
Romans 11 confirms what the prophets and apostles had already made plain: Israel’s national acceptance is yet future, and it is directly tied to the consummation of God’s plan for the world. Israel’s rejection brought blessing to the nations. Her future acceptance will bring “life from the dead”—a phrase rich with kingdom and resurrection significance.
Here again, we see cause and effect. When Israel believes, greater global blessing follows. This is not about earning favour but about fulfilling her role. That role remains open and awaits completion.
Closing reflections
Vlach’s paper doesn’t say anything new, and that’s exactly why it’s so important. It simply restates, clearly and scripturally, what should have never been forgotten: Israel’s national repentance is not an eschatological side note. It is a critical piece of the puzzle. The kingdom will come when Israel calls upon her Messiah.
This is not about forcing prophecy into a dispensational mould. It is about letting the Bible speak in its own terms, on its own timeline, with its own categories. And when we do that, we see that the return of Christ and the arrival of His kingdom is not disconnected from Israel. On the contrary, Israel’s repentance is the pivot point.
Works Cited:
Vlach, M. J. (2016). Israel’s Repentance and the Kingdom of God. The Master’s Seminary Journal, 27(1), 161–186. [PDF provided].
Leave a Reply to mark a delsignore Cancel reply