It becomes clear, then, that the rejection of Israel is not its abandonment but the reaffirmation of Israel in the fullness of the covenant and its promises. The covenant remains. God keeps his promises, and his faithfulness is not made of none effect by the faithlessness of his ancient people. The rejection of Israel as a people is only to be understood in the light of the substitutionary nature of the cross, for Israel’s rejection is bound up by God with the atoning rejection of the man on the cross, or rather in his acceptance of the sentence of our rejection – Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? Paul did not hesitate therefore to speak of the rejection of Israel as the reconciling of the world in language almost identical with his assertion that by the death of his Son we were reconciled to God. But it is precisely on the same ground that Paul could speak of the restoration of God’s people Israel. ‘For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.’ Similarly, ‘For if their rejection (Israel’s) means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead.’ (p54-55, Torrance)
Torrrance goes on to say that this does not simply mean that Israel will become Christian and be apart of the Church, but that the Church, the Israel of God, will have a special place for Israel.