Part 2 of You Might Be a Covenantalist and Not Know It

*In this post I will use both ESV and KJV. My preference is the ESV and I will use it in most cases. However, I was raised on the KJV and much of my theology is shaped on that verbiage. So, in cases where nuance matters, I may defer to the KJV for myself and my KJV-only readers.

A few days ago I posted an article on Covenantalism and Dispensationalism. But in that post I only wanted to begin a discussion. In that first discussion, I established the hermeneutical principles by which we may engage this conversation without needlessly talking past each other. Then I presented some common views that Dispensationalists tend to hold that seem to align with a Covenantal understanding, and I plead for fairness in our disagreements and characterizations of those with whom we disagree. I ended with the acknowledgment that this disagreement was far from settled by my short article. This post will address what is, in my opinion, the most convincing response from a Dispensational perspective. It is the pushback that I would have offered when I was firmly within this camp. This is the Romans 11 defense of a future salvation of all ethnic Israel.

Let me start by admitting that there is not a consensus within the Covenantal community as to how these passages in Romans 11 should be understood. So, rather than quote this commentary or that theologian, let’s look at these Scriptures together, but let’s do so with an openness to read out of Scripture what is taught and try not, as best as we can, to read into Scripture what we already think it says.

Before we jump into Romans 11, we need to have one major discussion that will help us work through the biggest presupposition that plagues this debate, and that is how we answer the question “who is Israel?” Or better yet, what does the Scripture say about who Israel is? So, this is where we will start.

Who is Israel According to Scripture?

Let’s start with the passage that is the basis of this discussion, Romans 11:25-26a. Here we read; “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. And in this way all Israel will be saved …” (ESV). If we just take this verse and a half, then the answer seems obvious. Paul speaks of a partial hardening that has come upon Israel. To my knowledge, no one disputes that this is about ethnic Israel. Therefore, when Paul says “all Israel will be saved” in the very next breath, it is natural to assume that Paul uses Israel to mean exactly the same thing in both places. In logic we would say this is a classic case for the principle of identity: A is A. And for Dispensationalists, this is the case. It is, in their terms, the literal reading of Scripture. I agree with the reasoning. But is this all that the Scriptures have to say?

I have heard it said that you should never read a Bible verse. Rather, you should always read Bible verses in context. So, what is the context in which Paul makes this claim? Prior to this claim, Paul is explaining how the Gentiles are grafted into the root of the olive tree, and how unbelieving natural branches (Hebrews) have been cut off. And just before verse 25, he explains that these natural branches, “if they do not continue in their unbelief (v. 23),” may “be grafted back into their own olive tree” (v.24). Now let’s look at all of verses 25 through 27 together;

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. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins” (Romans 11:25-27, ESV).

It is important to note the fact that Paul is not drawing his theology out of thin air. He is quoting Scripture. For my KJV readers, the formatting that is most often used in King James versions, requires you to do a bit more heavy lifting with your Bible study than those which use a paragraph format. The reason is that the KJV separates every verse, and, therefore, each verse reads as a stand-alone paragraph rather than allowing the verses to be read as a narrative. It also omits any quotation marks, so you must notice the verbal clue “as it is written” in order to see that Paul is quoting some other writing. In this case he is compiling a few verses from Isaiah, specifically Isaiah 59:20. When we jump back to the Old Testament, we find that Isaiah wrote, “‘And a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression,’ declares the LORD. And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD. . . . (Isa. 59:20-21, ESV). Notice that both Isaiah and Paul have a conditional in place for these who will participate in this covenant, “those . . . who turn from transgressions” (according to Isaiah) and those who “do not continue in their unbelief” (according to Paul). When we see these conditional phrases, it should cause us to ask, can Paul really mean “all Israel,” or is it possible, that he has something else in mind?

Today when we speak of Israel, we may think we are speaking of the same thing, but there are many times when that might not be the case. For example, if we speak of Israelites, meaning Jewish people, they may or may not be citizens of Israel. They may or may not be orthodox Jewish in their religious practice. There are many Hebrew people who are atheist and have never been to Israel. Then again there are many Israeli citizens, citizens of the nation Israel who are not ethnically Jewish. Within the nation of Israel there are Arabs, Africans, and Druze, and these are neither religiously nor ethnically Jewish. So, if we try to apply Paul’s words literally today, would we be right to say all Islamic or Druze believers who are Israeli by citizenship will be saved? I am not sure that I would have agreed with that, and I don’t think most Dispensationalists would either. So, where does that leave us? It leaves us needing to go deeper into Scripture in order to answer our question “who is Israel.”

In Paul’s day, we know according to the Gospels that the Jewish people prided themselves on being “children of Abraham.” When Jesus challenged them, they responded that they are “Abraham’s seed” (John 8:33, KJV). Jesus, in returned, acknowledged this claim saying, “I know that ye are Abraham’s seed. . . .” (John 8:37, KJV) but then explained that there is a difference in being a descendant of Abraham and being “Abraham’s children.” Jesus left no doubt in the distinction he was making explaining;

if ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do (John 8:39-44, KJV).

This distinction is important. Ishmael was also the seed of (or descendant of) Abraham, yet not a child according to the promise. That was reserved for Isaac. Then Isaac had two sons, of which Esau was not counted according to the promise, only Jacob. So, here in John’s Gospel we find clear teaching directly from Jesus that not all ethnically Jewish people are included in the promise given only to “children of Abraham.” But the confusion does not stop there. A little further in John’s Gospel we find Jesus teach that “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd” (John 10:14-16, KJV, emphasis added). So, according to Jesus, not all ethnic Jews are counted as his sheep, and there are sheep that are not ethnic Jews who are. “But,” I hear you saying, “Jesus said that he came only to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24, KJV). I know. So, clearly there is something else that is taking place here. Could it be that the work Christ came to do on the cross was of a grander design than we first understand?

Let me ask you a question, when was the Gospel first preached? It is likely that you might answer Peter’s sermon at Pentecost after the Holy Spirit indwelled the Apostles. Yes, but no. Genesis 3:15 is called the Protoevangelium. Proto meaning first and evangelium meaning “good news” because it is here that the Scripture first promises the coming of a Savior. This Gospel was preached to Adam and Eve long before there was a Hebrew people. Prior to the Babel event when God confused the speech and separated the nations, there was only one people. But due to sin, God separated the peoples and kept for himself Jacob (who was nowhere near being born yet) (Deut. 32:9). In Exodus we find that Jacob (Israel) and his descendants were to be a kingdom of priests (Exo. 19:6). If they were to be a kingdom of priest, who were the people they were to mediate on behalf of? The rest of mankind. They were to point the rest of the nations back to God their creator. But rather than bringing the nations to the One True God, they turned to worship the gods of the nations, breaking the covenant God made with them on Sinai. So, God promised through Jeremiah that He would make a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). And this He did in Jesus. In this new covenant, the people of God would also be established a kingdom of priests (Rev. 1:4-6, 5:10). And, again, I ask, to whom is this covenant people to be priest for? The answer has not changed. It was always according to God’s plan to send a Savior for his creation. This creation existed well before God separated out the Jewish nation, and he is the Shepherd of sheep from all nations, tribes, and tongues (Rev. 7:9-12).

So, I ask, is it possible that the term Israel might be used in one context to mean the Jewish people, while in another to mean those who Jesus calls Abraham’s children and his sheep?

Paul’s Israel in Context

Now, after a long journey through the Bible, we are able to revisit Paul’s letter with our minds better focused in a holistic Scriptural frame, and when we see him say “all Israel will be saved” we can begin to evaluate the options. Generally speaking, we have two options before us; 1. “All Israel” being saved is speaking of a future national revival of ethnic Jews converting to faith in Jesus, or 2. “All Israel” means all the faithful, as in all of Abraham’s children by faith. To find out, let’s return to the text.

Here I am going to use the ESV because of its use of a narrative-paragraph format. This allows us to better grasp the continuation of the text, rather than reading each verse as a stand-alone verse. This is important as you will see. Romans 11:17-24 is one paragraph and in it Paul is warning the Gentile believers not to “be arrogant toward the branches” (the Jewish people) (v.18) even though these natural branches have been cut off due to their unbelief. But, he explains, they may be reattached IF they do not continue in their unbelief. Then we move into the next paragraph.

It is here in verses 25 and 26 that I want you to pay special attention. Read it like it is your first time.

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. And in this way all Israel will be saved. . . . (Rom. 11:25-26, ESV).

First, we have a partial hardening of Israel. Clearly the natural branches who have been cut off from the previous paragraph. Next, we are told about the inclusion of the Gentile believers, or in his words, “the fullness of the Gentiles.” And then he says, “And in this way. . . .” In what way? It is when both the believing natural branches [or the sheep of “this fold” (the Jews)] and the Gentile believers (the sheep “not of this fold”) are both united in the one root (Jesus) that “all Israel will be saved.” All Israel, all of Abraham’s children is all who put their faith in Jesus Christ unto salvation. This is exactly what Paul teaches in his letter to the Ephesians;

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord (Eph. 2:14-21, ESV, emphasis added).

Jesus has made a way that both Jew and Gentile may be reconciled to God through his cross. There are not two peoples of God, but one new creation. This is what Paul means when he says to the Romans “all Israel.” “Wait,” you say, “what does that mean for the Jewish people?” “Has God forsaken them and replaced them with the Church?” God forbid!

The Jewish Distinctiveness

I land at this point sounding like Option 2 is the only reasonable understanding, and, yes, that is the option I have reasoned to myself. However, there are very smart and reasonable Christians that hold solidly to Option 1. These brothers and sisters have good reasons to still consider this option as valid. Consider the rest of Romans 11;

As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

“For who has known the mind of the Lord,
    or who has been his counselor?”
“Or who has given a gift to him
    that he might be repaid?”

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen (Rom. 11:28-36, ESV).

Does this sound like God is done with the Jews? No, God still calls them “beloved for the sake of their forefathers,” and establishes that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” So, what does this mean? Does it undermine the case I just built for Option 2? No. But what it shows is that our distinction between Option 1 and Option 2 may not be an either-or choice. Covenant theology allows for Option 2 to be the primary understanding but also allows for the real possibility of a future revival among the Jewish people. In fact, Zechariah seems to foretell such an event prophesying, “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn” (Zec. 12:10, ESV). Does this require a Dispensationalist type tribulation period? No. But it does speak of a time when God will pour out a spirit of grace on Jerusalem.

There is nothing in Paul’s letter to the Romans that should make us think that God is “done with the Jews,” but neither does it allow for some ethnicity-based salvation. Rather he is clear that both Jew and Gentile are made part of the one olive tree by faith. The Jew has every advantage as Paul says in Romans 3:1-2, and to keep the same symbolism, because they are the natural branches. But in order for those natural branches to remain connected to the root, they have to believe in Jesus the Messiah. This is a message that gets lost in the eschatological fervor of Dispensationalism. Whether intended or not, Dispensationalists may give the Jewish people a false hope. A hope that they will be saved, not through faith in Christ, but because of who their forefathers are. But as we read in Ephesians, there are not two peoples of God, but one body reconciled at the cross of Christ.

All Israel?

Will all of Israel be saved? Yes. Regardless of our opinions on this text, the Word of God is true. Whatever it means, whether I am right, or Ryrie is right, or if we are both wrong, God’s Word is true. When it comes to arguments for a Dispensational understanding, this is one of the most difficult sections of Scripture, but I hope I have shown that when we apply a full Scriptural context we can often illuminate the obscure with other Scriptures that are more plainly spoken. And I hope that I have shown that Covenantalism does not attempt to “replace” the Jewish people in God’s grand design for salvation, but rather, it teaches that both Jew and Gentile are united in the work of Christ on the Cross, undoing the effects of sin not only in the individual believer, but on the grand scale of mankind, reconciling that which was divided at Babel.

Again, I know better than to think that this one discussion will settle the issues between Dispensationalists and Covenantalists and there is at least one more part to go where I will address some of the other major areas of dispute (hopefully in a more concise manner), but I hope that this has been helpful and gives us all a way to consider the matter in a faithful and brotherly way. “Come, let us reason together” and show the unbelieving world that we can disagree in harmony, and in love point them to Jesus.

God Bless