Romans 11:11-21

Romans 11:11-21

David Q. Santos

Romans 11:11–21 (NKJV) 11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! 13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.

The book of Romans is arguably the most profound and theologically rich book of the Bible. It is the closest document the New Testament offers as a systematic theology. It is also an apologetic letter to the Church of Rome from the Apostle Paul; its thesis being “the just will live by faith.” In chapters 1-8 of the book of Romans Paul argues 1) the reality of universal guilt and separation from God. 2) Justification and the freedom that comes with it through faith in Jesus Christ. 3) Power for living a sanctified life free from sin. 4) And the promise of eternal glorification without condemnation.

Throughout this epistle Paul has been dealing with potential objections that his arguments might produce. Paul, in chapters 9-11, deals with a potential objection that could have come up; and ironically, has become one of the longest running theological debates in Christendom. Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum described the importance of Romans 9-11 when he wrote, “Crucial to any study of Israelology are chapters 9 through 11 of Paul’s epistle to the Romans where the apostle details God’s relationship to Israel in light of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah. These three chapters touch on both Israel past and Israel future, but most of it deals with Israel present.”[1] It is in these three chapters that the Bible student will find conclusive evidence for the future of national Israel.

That debate is whether or not God still has a future for Israel as a nation. The covenant view is that the church is the new Israel and has absorbed and replaced national Israel. In opposition to that view stands dispensational theology which holds that God still has a future for national Israel which is a distinct entity from the church. Fruchtenbaum summarized this when he wrote, “If it is possible to summarize Covenant Postmillennialism on this issue, it would be; the Jews have been cast off, and the Church, the New Israel, is now the people of God.”[2]

Millard Erickson wrote, “the church is the new Israel. It occupies the place in the new covenant that Israel occupied in the old.”[3] And Louis Berkhof wrote, “In essence Israel constituted the Church of God in the Old Testament”[4] It can be seen through these examples that the future of Israel is a sticking point in theology. Charles Ryrie noted that the central point of this debate in his book Dispensationalsim. He wrote,

This [the distinction between the Church and Israel] is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is dispensationalist, and is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will.[5]

This critical passage begins with a question; “I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall?” (Rom. 11:1) Paul then exclaims that God has not cast away Israel using himself as an example to illustrate that for the time being there is a spiritual remnant of believing Israel that has seen Jesus for who he is and come into the church. Paul enhanced this illustration with the Biblical example of Elijah whom God had to remind that there was a remnant that had been set aside and preserved. Paul concluded that thought with the clear statement that “Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” (Rom. 11:1-5)

Paul using himself and Elijah as the examples explained that there is a spiritual remnant of Israel in the church. The rest of Israel was blinded by God. (Rom. 11:7-10) In verse eleven Paul asks if they have stumbled that they should fall; which has a strong negation rendered “Certainly not!” In the next four verses Paul explains that through the fall of Israel, the Gospel has gone to the Gentiles with the purpose of making Israel (ethnic Jews) jealous.

In verse twelve Paul makes an important statement, “12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!” The “their” (αὐτός),[6] used three times in this verse, has the antecedent of the fallen in verse eleven which is national Israel who rejected Jesus; which is the reason for the fall. When national Israel is restored to its fullness the Gentiles and the world will both be blessed even more than they are now as the Gospel goes out to the Gentile world. Walvoord explains the comparison that Paul uses between the “fall” and the “fullness” of Israel. It states,

He then goes on to compare their fall with their fullness: “Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?” (Rom 11:12). In other words, if the blindness which has fallen upon Israel nationally during this present age was the occasion for great blessing for the Gentiles, the “fullness” of Israel will bring a richness of blessing which will be “much more.” Now, obviously, there can be no fullness of Israel if they have no future. Their fullness will come when the present condition of blindness is lifted.[7]

The contrast that Paul uses between Israel’s fall and their future fullness provides rich ground to work with when considering the reality of Israel’s future. And when compared to the entirety of Scripture there should be no question that God is not finished with national Israel yet. Even A.W. Pink stated, “That Israel as a nation will be actually and literally restored is declared again and again in the Word of God.”[8] Paul describes the removal of Israel’s blindness as a mystery in Romans eleven verses twenty-five to twenty-seven. Dr. Walvoord was a prolific writer on this subject. In his 1944 article Eschatological Problems V:Is the Church the Israel of God he wrote about the very passage and problem here.

The classic passage found in Romans eleven deals specifically with the problem before us. Has God no program for Israel as such? Paul raises the question himself: “I say then, Hath God cast away his people?” (Rom 11:1). He goes on to answer in the negative, indicating that at the time of the writing of Romans there was a remnant out of Israel saved by grace who had their part in the church. Unbelieving Israel is declared to have been blinded: “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Rom 11:7). He speaks of this blinding as their “fall,” which, because of the present privilege of Gentiles to receive the Gospel and salvation on the same terms as Israel, becomes “the riches of the Gentiles” (Rom 11:12).[9]

The restoration of Israel takes place only when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. (Rom. 11:25) At that point all of Israel will be saved. (Rom. 11:26) This passage can only be describing a future even for national ethnic Israel. It is national Israel that Paul was describing in 11:7-9 as being given a spirit of stupor and eyes that should not see. It should be pointed out rather emphatically that Paul does not blur the lines between Gentiles and Israel. Nor does he ever blur the lines between Israel and the church; in fact he maintains that the church is a new creation apart from Jews and Gentiles yet in existence simultaneously with both.

That Israel’s restoration results in great blessing to the whole world may be seen from the following quotations—“And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the Lord, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men” (Mic. 5:7). “Israel shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit” (Isa. 27:6). [10]

Continuing through Paul’s explanation, Paul uses another example to make his point. In verse sixteen he describes a lump of dough. The principal is that “because the firstfruit offering represented the entire portion, the entire piece of dough could be said to be holy, set apart to God.”[11] Paul’s point is that Israel is the first fruit is holy therefore the whole thing is holy. Israel is the firstfruit that has not been cast off forever. Fruchtenbaum elaborates,

Paul begins by giving the illustration and the principle (Romans 11:16). The connecting for, if, or now provides the reason for believing in a future national restoration. The illustration is that of the firstfruit and the root which refer to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Abrahamic Covenant. They are holy because God separated and consecrated them for a divine purpose. Israel as a nation is the lump and the branches. [12]

The final section to be discussed here is verses seventeen through twenty-one. Paul uses the illustration of the olive tree which represents the covenantal promises made to Israel. Some of the natural branches have been broken off of this tree; which describes the blinding in part of Israel. It also explains how some wild branches were grafted into these promises; which describes Gentiles being added to the blessings of the covenants. But the final division is a warning to Gentiles against becoming prideful over this grafting in. The warning is that these unnatural wild branches can still be removed.

It seems that covenant theology has become prideful of its position in Christ; scoffing and mocking the promises of God and denying the future that the wife of Yahweh holds in her destiny. It is not for the clay to instruct the potter on what the creation is going to be made into. Believers must remember that God is the potter and they are the clay.

Works Cited
Berkhof, L., Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938)
Erickson, Millard J., Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1998).
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G., Israelology Part 3 of 6, Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Volume 5, 4 (Fountain Valley, CA: Chafer Theological Seminary, 1999).
__________ Israelology : The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, Rev. ed. (Tustin, Calif.: Ariel Ministries, 1994).
Ryrie, Charles, Caldwell. Dispensationalism. (Chicago, IL. Moody Bible Institute. 2007).
Pink, Arthur Walkington, The Redeemer's Return (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2005).
Walvoord, John, Eschatological Problems V:Is the Church the Israel of God?, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 101, 404 (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1944).
John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible. (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1997).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology : The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, Rev. ed. (Tustin, Calif.: Ariel Ministries, 1994), 71.



[2] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology : The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, Rev. ed. (Tustin, Calif.: Ariel Ministries, 1994), 43.



[3] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1998), 1053.



[4] L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 572.



[5] Charles Ryrie, Caldwell. Dispensationalism. (Chicago, IL. Moody Bible Institute. 2007). 46.



[6] αὐτός is personal pronoun in its third person genitive plural masculine form αὐτῶν



[7] John Walvoord, Eschatological Problems V:Is the Church the Israel of God?, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 101, 404 (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1944), 409-10.



[8] Arthur Walkington Pink, The Redeemer's Return (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2005).



[9] John Walvoord, Eschatological Problems V:Is the Church the Israel of God?, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 101, 404 (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1944), 409.



[10] Arthur Walkington Pink, The Redeemer's Return (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2005).



[11] John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible. (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1997), 1714.



[12] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology Part 3 of 6, Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Volume 5, 4 (Fountain Valley, CA: Chafer Theological Seminary, 1999), 45.

Survey of the Biblical Covenants

Survey of the Biblical Covenants

David Q. Santos

Long before the church, God bound Himself to a group of people who became known as Israel. God made Israel His bride when He made a covenant with Abraham. This marriage covenant was confirmed to Isaac and Jacob (who was known as Israel as well). Israel prepared herself to be the wife of God during her time in Egypt. While the family grew into a nation the Promised Land was prepared for the bride. The land of Israel and the city Jerusalem were the wedding gifts given to Israel by her Husband.

The trouble is God desired to have a faithful wife who would keep herself pure. Israel, time and time again proved to be an idolatrous nation. Idolatry and disobedience governed the nation’s history with glimpses of faithfulness. Those periods of faithfulness often arose from struggles or being put under the oppression of the enemies of the nation. Though God had every right to cast away this unfaithful nation out He did not. This principal is illustrated on many occasions in scripture including the progressive and continuing nature of the covenants given to the nation.

Throughout Biblical history God has made several covenants that have helped to define God’s interaction and revelation with humanity in that particular dispensation. There are seven covenants; one being conditional but most unconditional. The first covenant is the Edenic or Protoevangelium (first gospel) which was given to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15. The second is the Noahic Covenant from Genesis 9. The third is the Abrahamic covenant that begins in Genesis 12:1-3; 13:14-18; 15:1-21; 17:1-27; 18:1-18; 22:1-19; 26:23-25; 35:9-15. The fourth is the Mosaic covenant that begins in Exodus chapter 19-24. The fifth is the Palestinian Covenant which is an unconditional enlarging of the Abrahamic covenant found in Deuteronomy 30:1-10. The sixth is the Davidic covenant from 2 Samuel 7 which establishes David and his lineage as the rightful kings of Israel and Judah and extending the covenant of Abraham to David's lineage. Finally, the seventh, is the New Covenant which is predicted by Jeremiah the prophet in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Non-dispensationalists like Charles Hodge argue against the literal fulfillment of the covenants to national Israel because as Hodge wrote, “The literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies relating to the restoration of Israel and the future kingdom of Christ, cannot by possibility be carried out…”[1]

The covenants define God’s relationship to mankind and His promises to them. The covenant given to Eve in the Garden of Eden was the first promise. It was the beginning of the redemption of fallen man. The Noahic covenant was given to all of creation. God promised to never again destroy the world with a flood (Gen. 9:11). Beginning with the Abrahamic Covenant God used these covenants or contracts to define His relationship with a particular people.

The Abrahamic & Palestinian Covenant:

The Abrahamic Covenant defines the relationship between God and Israel and is the beginning of the progressive promises given to the nation. In the words of Walvoord, “the Abrahamic Covenant was intended to be interpreted literally as indicated in its partial fulfillment and the frequent prophetic revelation of Israel’s glorious future and repossession of the land.”[2] “A literal interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant involves the permanent existence of Israel as a nation and the fulfillment of the promise that the land should be their everlasting possession.[3] Pink wrote, “Regeneration or non-regeneration affected the salvation of individuals among them, but it did not affect the covenant relationship of the people as a whole.”[4] Pink rightly observes that the covenant with Israel is everlasting and unbreakable. He also points out that the covenant relates to the people as a whole while salvation is an individual matter.

Genesis 12:1-3 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

There are dual promises in this passage that can be seen. Verses 1 and 2 illustrate the promises that are given to Abraham. In those verses he is given a land and is promised to be blessed and his name made great. In verse 3 the promise is to those outside of the nation of Israel, who will also be blessed as illustrated by the phrase “all families of the earth be blessed.” The only condition on this promise is that Abraham leaves his father’s house and goes to the land that would be shown to him. Ryrie wrote on this passage,

“To the land.” I.e., Canaan. Abraham was still in Haran when this call, originally given to him in Ur (Acts 7:2), was reiterated.

“a great nation” When God made this promise, Abraham had no son. The reference is to the Jewish nation, i.e., the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.

“I will bless you, and make your name great.” This promise was fulfilled in Abraham’s temporal blessings (13:2; 24:35), spiritual blessings (21:22), and fame (23:6; Isaiah 41:8).

“in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” This promise was fulfilled in the coming of Abraham’s seed, Christ (Gal. 3:8, 16).[5]

The promise is given to Abraham that the entire land that he was shown would be given to him and his seed forever. In Genesis 13:14-15 God shows Abraham the physical borders of the land that had been promised. This lends credence to the dispensational position that this passage and the other related to the Abrahamic Covenant are to be interpreted as literal. It would suggest that “seed of Abraham” in this passage is to be understood as his physical descendents. The historical-grammatical method of interpretation and the normative language demands this is the physical descendants, Israel, being spoken of. In the next passage, Genesis 15:18-21, the borders of the Promised Land are given in great detail. Walvoord argues that “The weakness of the Amillennial [and preterist] position is shown by examination of their exegesis of such passages as Genesis 15:18-21, where the exact boundaries of the promised land are given, and the kindred passage in Genesis 17:7-8 where the covenant is called everlasting and the land is promised as an everlasting possession.”[6] While many conservative non-dispensationalists reject the claim that they “spiritualize scripture”, their theological view forces them to spiritualize this and other passages. This specific land promise is intended to be viewed literally as an everlasting promise to the nation of Israel.

Genesis 15:2-4 is a key passage in the development of the Abrahamic covenant. It illustrates that the promise of literal physical land was given to the literal physical seed or descendents of Abraham. Later this promise was confirmed to Isaac and Jacob as well. Abraham understood the customs of the time. He knew that his heir would be Eliezer who was a gentile from Damascus. But God did not want to offer this inheritance to just anyone. It was to be recognized that God had given Abraham a son who would be the heir. In the last days it will also be understood that Israel has been restored to its land by the hand of God. Walvoord made clear distinctions between the covenant promises to Abraham’s physical seed and the promises contained in the covenant that are to the entire world. He wrote,

The promises to Abraham, to Abraham’s seed, and to “all families of the earth” are to be distinguished clearly. It breeds utter confusion to ignore these Scriptural divisions and to muddle the whole by reducing it to a general promise. Not only should these distinctions be observed, but it should be carefully noted what is left out of the covenant. While Abraham is personally justified by faith because of his trust in God’s promise concerning his seed, it is obvious that the Abrahamic Covenant itself is not the gospel of salvation even though the promised blessing anticipated the gospel (cf. Gal. 3:8).[7]

The literal normal reading of these passages as the original readers would have viewed them is that natural-national Israel is promised a specific piece of real estate. Pentecost wrote, “The eternal aspects of this covenant, which guarantee Israel a permanent national existence, perpetual title to the land of promise, and the certainty of material and spiritual blessing through Christ, and guarantee Gentile nations a share in these blessings, determine the whole eschatological program of the Word of God.”[8] The land portion of this covenant is reconfirmed by Moses as he was about to pass away and allow Joshua to take the nation into the land of Canaan. Deuteronomy 28:1-30:10 contains the record of this account. Moses predicts that the nation will fall away from God and thus will be taken out of the land. But, when they turned to God they would be returned to the land. This has been the theme of the history of the nation Israel since its conception; at the exodus from Egypt led by Moses. Non-dispensational scholars have a large hurdle to jump over when Israel is discussed since Israel has been restored to at least part of its land and has become a nation once again. Non-dispensational scholars prior to the 1948 restoration of the nation of Israel, such as Louis Berkhof, in his 1939 systematic theology, argued that dispensational premillennialism could not be accurate since Israel was indeed not a nation.[9] Dispensational scholars who had been arguing that Israel would be restored as a nation against what seemed to be an impossibility were vindicated in 1948 when Israel became a nation against the historical backdrop of World War II and the attempted genocide of God’s chosen people. Arguing with the authority of literal interpretation of prophetic passages, the dispensational position was proven. For example, John Walvoord wrote,

The covenant in respect to spiritual blessings on the seed of Abraham and “all the families of the earth” is the theme of the prophets who picture not only blessing on the Gentiles through Christ but the re-gathering and blessing upon the nation Israel (cf. Jeremiah 31:31-37).[10]

Although some still deny that it was God’s hand that restored the nation of Israel to her land as predicted in Ezekiel chapter 37. The death and destruction of WWII and the concentration camps and burial pits were giving rise to the restoration of the nation, were the fulfillment of the dry bones rising as the prophet spoke to them and God breathed life into them. While the world mourned for the incredible loss of this group of people that have been persecuted since the exodus; God chose to take action and restore the nation at that low point. Just as was predicted, the nation of Israel was reborn. God was still working among Israel and will continue; even until the nation’s full restoration in the millennial kingdom where Christ will rule and reign on earth.

In modern history we have witnessed the creation of the political state of Israel in Palestine, the persecution of Jews as such in Europe, the continued teachings of Orthodox Judaism as well as its reformed counterparts. Anyone in the face of such overwhelming evidence for recognition of the physical seed of Abraham in the world today who in effect denies them right and title to the name Israel is shutting his eyes to some very plain facts. One of the greatest of modern miracles has been the preservation of the identity of Israel as a race and nation, a fact which has been the stumbling stone for the Amillennial denial of Israel’s future.[11]

Joshua 21:43-45 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. 44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

The book of Joshua records an interesting passage that seems to suggest that there was a fulfillment of the covenants that Joshua would have been under. One must first ask whether or not an everlasting covenant can ever be fulfilled. The word everlasting of course suggests that it cannot ever be finished. The Hebrew word for “everlasting” is used in Genesis in eight instances. The word is ‘owlam (עולם) means forever.[12] The usage of the phrase “everlasting covenant” uses the same word as “everlasting hills” (Gen 49:26) or even “everlasting God” (Gen 21:33). If the covenant is as everlasting as God then it could not be conditional. The Bible knowledge commentary explains this passage,

Not one of His promises failed. This did not mean that every corner of the land was in Israel’s possession, for God Himself had told Israel they would conquer the land gradually (Deut. 7:22). Neither do these concluding statements ignore the tragedies that would develop during the period of the Judges, but those would be Israel’s fault, not God’s. Yet the unfaithfulness of Israel in no way impugned the faithfulness of God. Paul affirmed this fact in his words to Timothy, “If we are faithless, He will remain faithful, for He cannot disown Himself” (2 Tim. 2:13).

Some theologians have insisted that the statement in Joshua 21:43 means that the land promises of the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled then. But this cannot be true because later the Bible gives additional predictions about Israel possessing the land after the time of Joshua (e.g., Amos 9:14-15). Joshua 21:43 therefore, refers to the extent of the land as outlined in Numbers 34 and not to the ultimate extent as it will be in the messianic kingdom (Gen. 15:18-21). Also though Israel possessed the land at this time it was later dispossessed, whereas the Abrahamic Covenant promised Israel that she would possess the land forever (Gen 17:8).[13]

The Bible is clear that Israel will possess the land after the time of Joshua. So the covenant is not complete though it is no fault of God’s. God, no doubt, did fulfill His promises. But just as foretold and recorded in biblical history, Israel was taken out of the land when they were disobedient and in order to continue the covenant the nation is always restored to the land. In addition, the book of Judges illustrates that the Israelite nation did not fully occupy the land (Judges 1:27-30). This covenant is unconditional just as the gift of salvation is. This land is given to Israel as a wedding gift just as the Bride of Christ will receive her gifts as well.

The Davidic Covenant:

2 Samuel 7:12-16 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: 15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

The Abrahamic and Palestinian Covenants are both reconfirmed and expanded with the promises given in the Davidic Covenant. “The eschatological implications of the Abrahamic covenant lie in the words land and seed… In the next of Israel’s great covenants made with David, God is enlarging and confirming the seed promises.”[14] There are five provisions to this covenant.[15]

1. David is to have a child, yet to be born, who shall succeed him and establish his kingdom.
2. This son (Solomon) shall build the temple instead of David.
3. The throne of his kingdom shall be established forever.
4. The throne will not be taken away from him (Solomon).
5. David’s house, throne, and kingdom shall be established forever.

Among conservative theologians, the opinion is unanimous that Christ fulfills the Davidic Covenant,[16] and is an important aspect of Christology.[17] The problem is not one of whether or not Christ fulfills this covenant; but rather one of how He fulfills this covenant. Non-dispensational writers argue that this covenant is fulfilled in the present age with Christ at the right hand of God. Dispensational writers argue that Christ fulfills the promise by His return and righteous reign on earth during the millennium.[18]

The literal fulfillment of this covenant is difficult for some to believe primarily due to the passage of time from when it was originally given. The literal view was even more difficult to accept prior to the 1948 establishment of a Jewish nation called Israel by the authority of prophetic passages found in Ezekiel. Walvoord wrote in 1945; prior to the reestablishment of the nation of Israel, “There are, however, obvious difficulties in interpreting the Davidic covenant in a literal way and expecting a literal fulfillment. The covenant was given almost three thousand years ago, and history has not contained any continuous development or continued authority of the political kingdom of David.[19] Presently, there is a nation of Israel in existence waiting for its Messiah to be revealed to them since they missed Him in His first coming but will come under His rule when He returns. This covenant’s nature and relationship requires a literal fulfillment.

There are alternate passages from the scripture that confirm this essential principal of God’s plan. The concluding chapter of the book of Amos contains one such passage. This book was written in about 755 BC.[20] Chapter 9:1-10 describes Amos’ vision of destruction that will come to Israel. In this passage the Lord promises to sift the house of Israel among all nations. Verses 11-15 conclude the book on a much brighter note for the nation.

Amos 9:11-15 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. 13 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. 14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. 15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

“In that day” refers to the “Day of the Lord.” Previous references in Amos to “that day” had spoken of it as a day of darkness and destruction (Amos 2:16; 3:14; 5:18-20; 8:3; 9, 11, 13).[21] At that time the tent or tabernacle of David will be restored to the days of old. “As in the days of old” reflects the nostalgia of Israel’s people for the glory days of the kingdoms of David and Solomon.”[22] Verses 13-14 describe specific blessings of prosperity that will be part of the complete restoration of Israel to her land. Verse 15 is the essential verse. It promises that the nation would be restored to the land never to be removed from it again. The conservative literal interpretation of this verse demands that Israel be returned to the land and not be removed again (cf. Gen. 13:14-15; 17:7-8; Deut. 30:1-5; 2 Sam. 7:10; Jer. 30:10-11; Joel 3:17-21; Micah 4:4-7). The land will be inhabited by the nation of Israel, the physical seed of Abraham (cf. Ezek. 37:25; Joel 3:20; Zech 14:11). This could not have been fulfilled in history for the nation was removed to Assyria, Babylon, and then dispersed by the Romans in 70 AD.

The current nation of Israel is the only possible fulfillment of this prophetic passage. If the Lord returns during this inhabitation of the land of Israel then they will receive the fullness of the blessings promised as the nation to go into the millennial kingdom and receive the new covenant predicted by Jeremiah. It is interesting to compare aspects of the modern nation of Israel to this passage. They certainly seem to be receiving portions of the blessings promised by Amos. The nation is a strong world power in agricultural exports including fruit and flowers.

The New Covenant:

Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 contains the New Covenant with Israel. This is a passage that confirms the continuation of the house of Israel and the house of Judah. This passage describes a relationship between man and God not experienced since before the fall of man. Jeremiah begins this passage by saying that “days come.” In Jeremiah, this phrase introduces a special occasion of divine intervention in history.[23] The covenant that is being contrasted to this passage is the Mosaic covenant which had stipulations to be followed in detail. “The Old Covenant demanded adherence to stipulations (see Ex 19:1-23:33) which the people were unable to keep.”[24]

Verse 32 identifies that the Exodus from Egypt was in fact when God took that family out of Egypt and made it a nation and was also when God took the nation as a wife. The Lord, through Jeremiah, proclaims that as His wife, they had been adulterous through history. While many non-dispensational writers offer this passage as being fulfilled in the church the language and context only allow for a literal fulfillment to natural Israel in the literal millennial kingdom. This covenant will be fulfilled in a “period of universal knowledge of the Lord.” (verse. 34)[25] The view of a literal millennial interpretation of this passage is supported by its context. This covenantal promise follows the prediction of the time known as Jacob’s trouble (Jeremiah 30:7). The “time of Jacob’s trouble and the “seventieth week of Daniel” are synonymous with the time period prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ. The present age of grace does not fulfill the provisions given in this prophetic passage if a literal interpretation is employed.

The New Testament has much to say about the New Covenant. It confirms that Jesus’ blood is the blood of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25). In addition Jesus is clearly portrayed as the minister of the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15, 12:24). “The New Covenant is the ‘better covenant’ of [Hebrews 8:6]. This covenant was made with Israel and Judah, yet the church enjoys the spiritual blessings of this covenant now.”[26] Jesus’ blood is compared to that of the sacrifices made with the blood of bulls in Hebrews 9:11-14. Hebrews sets forth the “superiority of Christ’s service as Mediator of the New Covenant.”[27] The non-dispensationalist, having already decided that there is not to be a literal fulfillment of the Abrahamic-Davidic kingdom, interprets this passage in a manner that suggests that the New Covenant spoken of allows for the spiritualization of prophetic passages; changing Israel into the Church. A closer examination of the New Covenant teachings in the New Testament reveals that this passage does not negate the literal interpretation and fulfillment of the earthly kingdom.

The general teaching of the New Testament passages bearing upon the New Covenant is that the new covenant has been made possible by the sacrifice of Christ. Attention is drawn to this central aspect in passages dealing with the Lord’s Supper… Whether the church of the present age or Israel is in view, the new covenant provides a basis in grace for forgiveness and blessing secured by the blood of Jesus Christ… On this all conservative theologians agree whether premillennial, Amillennial, or postmillennial. The difference in point of view is occasioned by the question of whether the new covenant promised Israel is being fulfilled now, in the present inter-advent age, as the amillenarians contend, or whether Israel’s new covenant will be fulfilled after the second coming of Christ in the millennial kingdom, as the premillenarians contend. Most premillenarians (Darby excepted) would agree that a new covenant has been provided for the church, but not the new covenant for Israel.[28] [The Amillenarian] states that the passage “declares that this new covenant has been already introduced.” A careful reading of the passage will reveal it makes no such statement. It declares a “better covenant” than the Mosaic covenant has been introduced (Heb. 8:6), but it does not state here or anywhere else that this better covenant is “the new covenant with the house of Israel,” or that Israel’s new covenant has been introduced. Allis (an amillenarian) not only reads in statements which are not to be found in this passage, but also ignores the argument of the writer of Hebrews.[29]

The argument of the book of Hebrews is that the Mosaic Covenant is at an end. The writer of Hebrews does not argue that the provisions of the New Covenant were in full effect in this age. Hebrews 12:24 is a unique reference to “new covenant.” This verse uses a reference meaning “recent” in relation to Jesus as being the mediator of this covenant. Verses 24-25 argue not to turn away from Christ, who was on earth, and is now mediating a recent covenant. “[This] Reference is apparently to the covenant with the church and not to Israel’s new covenant. Hebrews 9:15 likewise declares that Christ is the Mediator of ‘a new covenant,’ which is true, of course, both for a covenant with the church or a covenant with Israel.”[30] Olander explains the nature and fulfillment of the new covenant by writing;

The new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-12) did not go into effect until the death of Christ (Heb. 10:10-18, esp. 17). The fact that the new covenant is in effect does today not mean it is fulfilled or is being literally (Jer. 31:31-34) can only fulfill this covenant literally. The Scriptures are very clear, and preserved perfectly in Hebrew, that His new covenant is made exclusively with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jer. 31:31). This was never an expression for any other group or people (church) other than the nation Israel, the Jews.

The Lord most likely preserved it this way so that [no] one else could lay claim to a fulfillment except His covenant people, Israel, the Jews. To overlook this or bypass it is nothing more than willful rejection of what is in the text. The Text is perfectly clear. The epistle to the Hebrew does nothing more than support this completely.[31]

The New Covenant will be fulfilled when Jesus returns in Glory with His unveiled bride; at which time “every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God” (Romans 14:11).

Work cited
Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology: The Last Things. (Grand Rapids Michigan. Baker Books. 1996). 107.
Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible. (Thomas Nelson Publishers. Nashville TN. 1997), 1473.
Olander, David E, The Importance of the Biblical Languages. Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond: A Theological Collection in Honor of Charles C. Ryrie. (Fort Worth TX. Tyndale Seminary Press. 2008), 76.
Pentecost, J. Dwight, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. (Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, Michigan), 1958. 71.
Pink, Author W. A Study of Dispensationalism. http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Dispensationalism/dispensationalism.htm , Chapter 1
Ray, Charles, Basic Distinctives of Dispensational Systematic Theology. Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond: A Theological Collection in Honor of Charles C. Ryrie. (Fort Worth TX. Tyndale Seminary Press. 2008), 59.
Rogers, Cleon L. Jr., The Davidic Covenant in the Gospels. (Dallas Texas. Bibliotheca Sacra 150. Oct-Dec 1993), 458.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell, The Ryrie Study Bible. (Chicago, Moody Press. 1978), 24
Strong’s Bible Dictionary. The Online Bible Millennium Edition Version 1.2. (Winterbourne Ontario, Canada. 1999), H5769.
Walvoord, John F. The Abrahamic Covenant and Premillennialism. (Dallas Texas. Bibliotheca Sacra. Oct-Dec 1951-Oct-Dec 1952), 422.
_____ The Fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. (Dallas Texas, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1945), 154.
_____ The New Covenant with Israel, (Dallas, Texas. Bibliotheca Sacra. July-Sept. 1953), 196.
Walvoord, John F. and Roy B. Zuck. The Bible Knowledge Commentary, An Exposition of Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, Old Testament, (Colorado Springs, Colorado. Cook Communications Ministries, 2004), 364-365.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Charles Ray, Basic Distinctives of Dispensational Systematic Theology. Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond: A Theological Collection in Honor of Charles C. Ryrie. (Fort Worth TX. Tyndale Seminary Press. 2008), 59.



[2] John F Walvoord. The Abrahamic Covenant and Premillennialism. (Dallas Texas. Bibliotheca Sacra. Oct-Dec 1951-Oct-Dec 1952), 422.



[3] Ibid, 414



[4] Pink, Author W. A Study of Dispensationalism. http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Dispensationalism/dispensationalism.htm , Chapter 1



[5] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible. (Chicago, Moody Press. 1978), 24



[6] Walvoord, Abrahamic Covenant, 421.



[7] Walvoord, Abrahamic Covenant, 418.



[8] J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. (Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, Michigan), 1958. 71.



[9],Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: The Last Things. (Grand Rapids Michigan. Baker Books. 1996). 107.



[10] Walvoord, Abrahamic Covenant, 28.



[11] Ibid, 139.



[12] Strong’s Bible Dictionary. The Online Bible Millennium Edition Version 1.2. (Winterbourne Ontario, Canada. 1999), H5769.



[13] Walvoord, John F. and Roy B. Zuck. The Bible Knowledge Commentary, An Exposition of Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, Old Testament, (Colorado Springs, Colorado. Cook Communications Ministries, 2004), 364-365.



[14] Pentecost, 100.



[15] John F Walvoord, The Fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. (Dallas Texas, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1945), 154.



[16] Ibid, 155.



[17] Cleon L Rogers. Jr., The Davidic Covenant in the Gospels. (Dallas Texas. Bibliotheca Sacra 150. Oct-Dec 1993), 458.



[18] Walvoord, Fulfillment, 156.



[19] Ibid, 158.



[20] Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible. (Thomas Nelson Publishers. Nashville TN. 1997), 1473.



[21] Walvoord, Bible,1451.



[22] Nelson’s NKJV, 1488.



[23] Ibid, 1282.



[24] Ibid, 1283.



[25] John F Walvoord, The New Covenant with Israel, (Dallas, Texas. Bibliotheca Sacra. July-Sept. 1953), 196.



[26] Nelson’s NKJV, 2088-2089.



[27] Walvoord, Bible, 801.



[28] Walvoord, Covenant, 199-200.



[29] Ibid, 202.



[30] Walvoord, Covenant, 203.



[31] David E Olander, The Importance of the Biblical Languages. Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond: A Theological Collection in Honor of Charles C. Ryrie. (Fort Worth TX. Tyndale Seminary Press. 2008), 76.