November 2021 Pulse
In his book Final Dawn Over Jerusalem (1998), the popular American pastor and televangelist, John Hagee, argues that God has two chosen peoples: Israel and the Church. Hagee’s view is based on a certain reading of Genesis 22:17, where God said to Abraham, ‘I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore.’
Hagee opines that sand in this passage refers to Israel, and stars to the Church. He writes:
Stars are heavenly, not earthly. They represent the church, spiritual Israel. The ‘sand of the shore’ on the other hand, is earthly and represents an earthly kingdom with a literal Jerusalem as the capital city. Both stars and sand exist at the same time, and neither ever replaces the other. Just so, the nation and spiritual Israel, the church, exist at the same time and do not replace each other.
While Hagee’s exegesis of Genesis 27 may be outlandish, his idea that there are two chosen peoples can be traced to the 19th century.
The founder of the Plymouth Brethren Church, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), maintained that there are distinguishable economies of God’s plan of salvation and argued for the clear distinction between Israel and the Church. In the first decades of the twentieth century, this view, known as dispensationalism, was promoted and popularised with the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible.
The American theologian and first President of Dallas Theological Seminary, Sperry Lewis Chafer (1871-1952), also advanced this view. In Volume 4 of his seminal Systematic Theology, Chafer writes:
The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity … Israel is an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne, so that in eternity … never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet.
Some Christians who hold this view believe that Jews do not have to put their faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Because of the two distinct economies of God, Jews can attain salvation by obeying the Mosaic law.
In an interview with Julia Duin of The Houston Chronicle, John Hagee said: ‘The law of Moses is sufficient enough to bring a person into the knowledge of God until God gives him a greater revelation … Everyone else, whether Buddhist or Baha’i needs to believe in Jesus, but not the Jews.’
Let me state my position on this issue at the very outset. I believe that the Bible teaches that God has only one chosen people, not two. Israel has always been the Church of God, and the Church has always been the Israel of God — under Christ.
Thus, while the new covenant has indeed replaced the old, the ‘Church’ has not replaced ‘Israel’. Rather God has fulfilled the promises he made to the old covenant Church in the new covenant Church. My position, therefore, may be described as a version of covenantalism (in contrast to dispensationalism).
TWO COVENANTS, ONE PEOPLE
In Genesis 12:1-3, God called Abram to leave his country and journey to the promised land, a calling that is accompanied by a great promise:
Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land I will show you. And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.
The covenant that God made with Abraham recorded in Genesis 12 was ratified in Genesis 15. The main focus is on God’s promise to make Abraham a ‘great nation’ (Genesis 12:2) through his biological offspring, namely, the sons of Jacob (Israel). Genesis 17 and 22 take up the second aspect of God’s promise to Abraham recorded in Genesis 12, which is that through Abraham and his descendants, ‘all the families [peoples] of the earth’ will be blessed.
Thus, while the initial focus of God’s promises is on the biological descendants of Abraham, the scope of God’s blessings will expand to include ‘the peoples of the earth’, as God’s redemptive plan continues to unfold.
After the people of Israel was delivered from slavery in Egypt, God established the Mosaic covenant with them. The purpose of this covenant is to instruct his people how they ought to conduct themselves in the land that he has given to them (Exodus 20-23; Deuteronomy 4:6-8). The Mosaic covenant showed how God’s people can be faithful to him through obedience to the law and sacrificial worship.
The promises that were made to Abraham were realised in and through Jesus Christ (Luke 1:54-55, 69-75; 2 Corinthians 1:20), the incarnate Son of God, and the long-awaited Davidic Messiah (Matthew 1:17-18; 2:4-6; 16:16; 21:9; Luke 2:11; John 7:42; Acts 2:22-26). Jesus is the ultimate seed of Abraham (Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16), who will fulfil the role of the Servant prophesied by Isaiah (Acts 3:18; 4:27-28; 8:32-35).
Not only will Jesus the Messiah redeem Israel (Luke 2:38; Acts 3:25-26; Hebrews 9:12, 15), he will also mediate the blessings of God to the whole world, forming an international community of faith (Acts 10:1-11; 15:1-29; Romans 1:2-6; 3:22-24; 4:16-18; 15:8-12; Galatians 3:7-14, 29). In other words, in Jesus, both aspects of the promises of God to Abraham will find their fulfilment.
In Hebrews 8:7-13, we read that the new covenant that Jesus Christ has come to mediate has superseded the old or the ‘first’ covenant. The writer of Hebrews is here referring to the Mosaic covenant. Just as Jesus has come to fulfil the promises that God made to Abraham, the new covenant that he mediates is also the fulfilment of the Mosaic covenant, making it obsolete.
Thus, for the writer of Hebrews, the ‘shadow’ which is the old covenant has been superseded and replaced by the reality that the new covenant has brought.
For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near (10:1).
Making the same point, Paul writes: ‘Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new noon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ’ (Colossians 2:16-17).
Hebrews also explains why the new covenant is superior to the old.
Jesus Christ, the great high priest, is far superior to the priests under the old covenant because the priesthood he exercises is permanent, perfect and heavenly (Hebrews 7:23-8:6). The new covenant is based ‘on better promises’ (8:6), namely, an ‘eternal redemption’ (9:12) and an ‘eternal inheritance’ (9:15), established through the shed blood of Christ (9:11-10:18), which is the ‘blood of the eternal covenant’ (13:20).
Now, while God has enacted two covenants, he has but one chosen people. There are continuities and discontinuities between Israel and the Church, or, between the Church of God in the old covenant and the Israel of God in the new. The people of God in the old covenant, which comprised mainly (although never exclusively) of the Jewish people would now include peoples of every tongue and tribe.
As David Holweda has put it, the inauguration of the new covenant by Jesus Christ has brought about:
an amazing universalising of the promises. Promises made originally to the particular people Israel in the Old Testament now in Jesus universally embrace the nations of the world. Promises associated with a temple made of stone located in a particular place now find fulfilment in a universal temple composed of human persons living among nations. And Jerusalem is already a universal city whose citizens are gathered from the nations of the world.
The continuity between Israel and the Church is clearly underscored by Peter, who in writing to the Christians scattered throughout Asia Minor, could use the imageries that were employed by the Old Testament to portray the old covenant people of God to describe the Church:
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, his own special people, that you may declare the praises of him who called you our of darkness into his marvellous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy (1 Peter 2:9-10).
Paul emphasises that Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, has torn down the wall of hostility between Jews and Gentiles so that ‘he might create one new man in place of two’ (Ephesians 2:15). Thus, there is ‘neither Jew nor Gentile … for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Galatians 3:28).
Hence Paul could describe the Galatian church, which was made up of both Jews and Gentiles, as ‘the Israel of God’ (Galatians 6:16). Drawing from the writings of Paul on this topic, especially this passage in Galatians, John Stott remarks:
The Christian church enjoys a direct continuity with God’s people in the Old Testament. Those who are in Christ today are ‘the true circumcision’ (Philippians 3:3), ‘Abraham’s offspring’ (Galatians 3:29) and ‘the Israel of God’.
Stephen Sizer is therefore absolutely right when he argues that:
The New Testament does not teach that the Gentiles have superseded the Jews. But neither does it teach that the Jewish people retain a position of superiority over the Gentiles or over the church. There is continuity between believers under the old covenant who looked forward to the coming of Christ and believers under the new covenant who look forward to his return. When Jesus died he broke down the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile.
ALL ISRAEL
We turn now to an expression that has exercised the minds of many exegetes, found in Paul’s letter to the Romans: ‘All Israel will be saved’ (Romans 11:26). Who was Paul referring to when he spoke of Israel here? Was he referring to ethnic Israel? Or did Paul use ‘Israel’ to refer to the one people of God which includes Jews and Gentiles?
The best way to approach these questions is to consider what Paul has to say about what it means to be a Jew. In Romans 2:28-29, Paul states very clearly who he considers to be a true Jew when he writes:
For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God.
Here, Paul redefines (or better, properly defines) what true circumcision signifies and hence what true Jewishness entails. As New Testament scholar James Dunn points out, ‘not only is it the law and circumcision that Paul seeks to remove from the domain of Jewish pride and self-assurance; even the title ‘Jew’ itself comes into radical question.’
Later in the same epistle, the apostle clearly states what he means by ‘Israel’ and who are the true descendants of Abraham. He writes:
For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but ‘Through Isaac shall your descendants be named’. This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants (Romans 9:6-8).
Paul makes the distinction between ‘the children of the flesh’ (Jews who are biological descendants of Abraham) and ‘the children of promise’, who are the true ‘children of Abraham.’ The latter are those who, like Abraham, have put their faith in God and who have strived to obey his will. They are the true Israel, the children of the promise. Going to the heart of the apostle’s teaching regarding Israel, N. T. Wright comments that ‘Paul makes it abundantly clear that there is no covenant membership, and consequently no salvation, for those who simply rest on their ancestral privilege.’
However, we must also take the message on the flip side of the same coin seriously. This passage shows that there indeed is a true Israel — God’s people who have put their faith him and are thus reckoned as his children. William Hendrickson writes:
It is important to point out that although the statement ‘For not all who are Israel are Israel’ is cast in the negative mould, the positive implication is, ‘There is, indeed, a true Israel. God’s rejection of Israel is not total or complete.’ His word has not failed and never will fail. The remnant will be saved (verse 27). He who puts his faith in Christ will never be put to shame (verse 33).
With these considerations, we now turn to Paul’s declaration that ‘All Israel will be saved’ (Romans 11:26). What does Paul mean by the expression ‘All Israel’?
It is clear from the discussion so far that Paul could not possibly mean by the phrase ‘all Israel’ every single Jew who has ever lived. I therefore concur with the NT scholar F.F. Bruce that this expression does not suggest that ‘every Jew without exception’ will be saved. But, as we have seen, neither does ‘Israel’ refer exclusively to ethnic Israel, that is, the biological descendants of Abraham.
The great sixteenth century Reformer, John Calvin, has, in my view, provided the most satisfactory explanation of what Paul meant by ‘All Israel’ in his commentary on Romans:
I extend the word Israel to include all people of God, in this sense, ‘When the Gentiles have come in, the Jews will at the same time return from their defection to the obedience of faith. The salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be drawn from both, will thus be completed, and yet in such a way that the Jews, as the firstborn family of God, may obtain the first place.’ I have thought that this interpretation is the more suitable, because Paul wanted here to point to the consummation of the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means confined to the Jews, but includes the whole world. In the same way, in Gal. 6:16, he calls the Church, which was composed of Jews and Gentiles, the Israel of God, setting the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the carnal children of Abraham who had fallen away from faith.
Space does not allow me to discuss in detail the important section in Paul’s epistle to the Romans (Romans 9-11) which delineates the sequence of events which describes the unbelief of Israel and the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s plan of salvation.
But I would like to draw your attention to the specific passage where the expression that we are discussing appears in order to make an important exegetical point.
Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to be aware 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 … (Romans 11:25-26).
It is a mistake to translate verse 26 as ‘And then all Israel will be saved’ because this would suggest that Paul is here presenting a chronology. Those who translate the verse in this way, or understand that this is what the apostle meant to convey tend to hold the view that by Israel Paul is referring to ethnic Israel
Most English translations render this verse correctly as ‘In this way, all Israel will be saved’ (NIV, ESV) or ‘And so all Israel will be saved’ (KJV, NASB). These translations suggest that with the inclusion of the Gentiles and the change of heart of the Jews who previously had rejected Christ, all Israel, that is, the entire people of God, comprising Jews and Gentiles, will be saved.
Does this mean that God has revoked his promises to the Jews? Paul asks this very question in Romans 11:1, and provides a firm answer: ‘By no means! … God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew’ (11:1, 2).
The NT scholar Herman Ridderbos explains this well:
… on the one hand Paul is able to see the church of the gentiles as endowed with all the privileges and blessings of Israel, and to see it occupy the place of unbelieving Israel, and yet on the other hand to uphold to the full the continuation of God’s original redemptive intentions with Israel as the historical people of God.
Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor at Trinity Theological College (Singapore) and Theological and Research Advisor of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity.