Eschatological Problems X: The New Covenant with Israel

By John F. Walvoord

The New Testament by its very name proclaims the universal recognition that a new covenant was made by our Lord Jesus Christ. The title, applied to all the books of the Bible written after Christ, stands in contrast to the Old Testament or Old Covenant. In common parlance, the term New Testament has become almost a cliché, used to represent the books as such rather than their content. The term is, however, Biblical and fraught with great significance. Its interpretation bears on soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology in particular, and it colors theology as a whole.

The particular aspect of the new covenant considered here is the relation of the new covenant to Israel, specifically, the question of whether the new covenant promised Israel in the Old Testament will have literal fulfillment. In the hours of Israel’s apostasy and departure from God, the prophets mingled their predictions of dire judgment with glowing promises of a future in which Israel would have spiritual and temporal well-being. The interpretation of these promises in its relation to Christian doctrine is an important and determinative eschatological problem.

Like other Old Testament prophecies relating to Israel, the promises of a new covenant for Israel have received widely differing interpretations. Schools of interpretation have divided according to well-defined patterns corresponding to systems of eschatology. The postmillennial view of eschatology, for instance, finds the promises of the new covenant for Israel fulfilled in blessing on Jews who believe in Christ. Some, like Charles Hodge, who inclines to a literal interpretation of God’s promises, believe the Jewish people as a whole will come into blessing in the church through believing in Christ, thereby, according to this theory, fulfilling the promises.[1] In other words, the postmillennial theory believes the promises will be fulfilled in this present age to Jews who believe in Christ.

The amillennial theory of eschatology differs somewhat from the postmillennial view. Its thesis is that the church as a whole, composed of both Jew and Gentile, is the true Israel, and therefore takes over bodily the blessings promised to Israel. Hence, the new covenant for Israel is, in fact, identical to the new covenant with the church and fulfilled in it. Dr. Oswald T. Allis states the position concisely when he writes, “For the gospel age in which we are living is that day foretold by the prophets when the law of God shall be written in the hearts of men (Jer. xxxi.33) and when the Spirit of God abiding in their hearts will enable them to keep it (Ezek. xi.19, xxxvi.26f ).”[2] In contrast to the postmillennial theory which finds fulfillment for the new covenant for Israel in blessing on the Jewish people in the church, Dr. Allis in stating the amillennial position transfers the promises to the entire church. Both of these theories find fulfillment of the new covenant in the present age only.

The premillennial theory of eschatology offers a more complex system of interpretation. Three types of interpretation are offered, the first two of which have no real difference. The third stands in rather sharp distinction to the others. The first premillennial theory and the most common is that popularized in the Scofield Reference Bible.[3] It presents the new covenant with Israel and the church as being essentially one covenant, based on the sacrifice of Christ, but having a twofold application. It is applied to the church in this age, that is, to all who believe in Christ. It will have a future application in a literal millennium after the return of Christ when the promises given to Israel will be fulfilled. The new covenant under this theory has both a present and a future fulfillment, a present application to the church, a future application to Israel. The advantage of this interpretation is that it allows a full literal interpretation of God’s promises to Israel which is impossible in the postmillennial and amillennial theories.

Another form of premillennial interpretation is that which distinguishes the new covenant with Israel from the new covenant with the church. In other words, it finds two new covenants. The new covenant with Israel is new in contrast to the Mosaic covenant of the Old Testament. The new covenant for the church is new in contrast to the Adamic or old covenant for the church as a whole. Both new covenants are based on the sacrifice of Christ, but the promises belonging to the church and to Israel are sharply distinguished. It is apparent that while this approach to the problem makes a sharper distinction between Israel and the church, it does not differ essentially from the more common premillennial interpretation.

A third theory is suggested which limits the term new covenant to a covenant with Israel to be fulfilled in the millennium.[4] In other words, the only new covenant is the one belonging to Israel and the only fulfillment is future. The church in the present age has a covenant or system of promises through the death of Christ, but it is not specifically a new covenant. This approach to the problem of interpretation is not generally held by premillennialists. The three premillennial views offer three degrees of distinction, the last being one extreme of which the amillennial view is the other.

The Determining Issue

The solution of the problem involved in the new covenant with Israel hinges on several determinative issues: (1) Are all the promises given to Israel under the new covenant being fulfilled in the present age? If they are, then the postmillennial and amillennial interpretations may be correct. If the promises are not being fulfilled now and cannot be fulfilled under conditions in the present age, then a future fulfillment is called for, and the premillennial interpretation is justified. (2) How does the New Testament use the term new covenant? This approach should confirm findings under the first question and give a ground for certain conclusions. (3) What is the explicit teaching of the New Testament about the new covenant? The new covenant with Israel is specifically quoted in the New Testament and conclusions drawn from it. How do these passages fit into the doctrine as a whole? The answer to these questions should in a large measure determine the answer to the problem.

The Promises of the New Covenant with Israel

The major passage in the Old Testament and the only one to use the specific term new covenant is found in Jeremiah 31:31–34: “Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 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 a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their hearts will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.”

The issue being considered is whether these promises are now being fulfilled to the church or to the Jews in the church in this age. In this light, the provisions of the covenant are to be noted in the following particulars: (1) It is specifically a covenant with “the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” (2) It is contrasted with the Mosaic covenant which also was with Israel only and not with any other people. (3) The covenant will be fulfilled “after those days,” i.e., after the days of judgment and affliction described in the preceding context. (4) The Law is to be written in their hearts, in their “inward parts”—in contrast to the Mosaic law which was written in tables of stone. (5) Jehovah will be their God and Israel will be His people—this relationship will be mutually and publicly recognized by both parties. (6) There will be no need to proclaim the truth concerning Jehovah as all will know Him, “from the least of them unto the greatest of them.” (7) Their sins will be forgiven and remembered no more.

While certain aspects of this covenant correspond to spiritual blessings realized by the people of God in this age, it is not difficult to see that the provisions of the covenant are not fulfilled in any literal sense in this age. Those who follow the amillennial or postmillennial interpretations freely admit the need for a spiritual or non-literal interpretation. Even in a spiritual interpretation, however, it is necessary to assign meaning to the symbols used and statements made. The covenant is specifically made with Israel—a name which is never used in the New Testament in reference to Gentiles, as brought out in previous articles on eschatological problems. The covenant provides that God will be their God and Israel shall be His people. Obviously this involves more than ever existed in the Old Testament. It is a relationship to Israel as a group and premises a public manifestation of God’s blessing on them. Certainly this has no fulfillment in the present day or in any period since apostolic times. A most distinctive promise is that “all” will know Jehovah. This has never been true of the world and is not true today. The church in the world is given a commission to proclaim the Gospel to a world that knows not God, to teach the truth to those who have believed in Him. There is no evidence whatever that the day will ever come when all will know Jehovah until the full revelation is given by the personal return of Christ. The argument that this covenant is fulfilled in the present age hinges then on spiritualizing the key words, viz., Israel, and ignoring some of the most striking aspects of the covenant.

While Jeremiah 31:31–34 is the only reference specifically to the new covenant with Israel in the Old Testament, it cannot be doubted that many other passages refer to the same covenant, particularly the expression everlasting covenant. In this description its character as unconditional and eternal is emphasized instead of its difference in quality to the Mosaic covenant. All of God’s covenants with Israel except the Mosaic are described as everlasting, and it is necessary to consider the context to determine the reference in each case. In most instances the reference is clear.

In Isaiah 61:8, 9, certain aspects of the new covenant are emphasized and enlarged: “…I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the nations, and their offspring among the peoples: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which Jehovah hath blessed.” Here is confirmed and enlarged what is revealed later, chronologically, by Jeremiah. Israel is to be publicly blessed before all the peoples of the world. As in the Jeremiah passage, these promises follow the predictions of judgment and are associated with Israel’s restoration as a nation and restoration to their land.

Jeremiah himself adds to the new covenant in 32:37–40 of his prophecy. The same features as appear in the new covenant are reiterated: (1) Israel is to be God’s people; (2) a changed heart; (3) God will do them good forever. Some additions to the covenant are also brought out clearly. The fulfillment of the new covenant is conditioned on the regathering of Israel from their world-wide dispersion (Jer 32:37) and their permanent establishing in their ancient land (Jer 32:41). These additions are important because there is nothing in the present age which fulfills these prophecies even spiritually.

The prophet Ezekiel adds his word of revelation confirming the provisions of the new covenant with Israel (Ezek 37:21–28). The same elements appear as in previous passages: (1) Israel’s regathering as the preliminary work of God; (2) Israel to be one nation, ruled by one king; (3) Israel to be delivered from idolatry, cleansed, forgiven; (4) Israel to dwell in the land given unto Jacob and their possession is confirmed to continue “forever”; (5) Israel to have an everlasting covenant of peace; (6) Israel to have the tabernacle of God with them; (7) Israel to be known among the heathen as a nation God is blessing.

A survey of the promises in the new covenant as contained in Jeremiah and as revealed by Isaiah and Ezekiel brings out clearly that nothing in the history of the present age comes even near to fulfilling the promises given to Israel. The factors which are in the context of the major passages are lacking. Israel has not been regathered, not brought as a whole to Jehovah, not blessed as a nation before the world, does not possess the land, does not have one heart to serve the Lord, is not forever secure from departure from God, does not know the Lord from the least to the greatest. There is no justification in these passages for the idea that the church as a whole fulfills the covenant. These passages teach and the Jews at the time understood them to mean that God would fulfill them literally. Upon such promises rest the whole hope of the Jews as a nation, and their fulfillment is joined to the faithfulness of a covenant-keeping God.

Use of the Term New Covenant in the New Testament

Inasmuch as the New Testament is an inspired commentary on the Old Testament, the way in which the term new covenant is used in the New Testament is an important aspect of the doctrine. The term new covenant, καινὴ διαθήκη, is found five times in the New Testament in undisputed passages (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15 ).

It is variously translated new covenant and new testament. It is found in some texts in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, and the word new obviously referring to the new covenant is found in Hebrews 8:13. The expression διαθήκη νέα also translated new covenant is found in Hebrews 12:24, where it brings out that the covenant is not only new in quality as contained in καινή, which is used in the other references, but also that the covenant is recent in its beginning.

There are many references to Israel’s covenants in the New Testament. The Abrahamic covenant is mentioned frequently (Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; 7:8; Gal 3:17; 4:24; Heb 8:9). In other instances the Mosaic covenant is indicated (2 Cor 3:14; Heb 9:4, 15, 20; Rev 11:19). General references to Israel’s covenants are also made (Rom 9:4; Eph 2:12). In some instances the new covenant is clearly in view though the word new is not mentioned (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Rom 11:27; Heb 8:10). The body of these Scriptures provides the basis for a New Testament study of the problem of Israel’s new covenant.

Of the five references to the new covenant in the New Testament, two have reference to the Lord’s Supper, one refers to the new covenant as that which Paul ministered, one refers to the new covenant with Israel, and the final passage reveals that Christ is the mediator of the new covenant. The fact that the term refers to the Lord’s Supper which is for both Jew and Gentile is a clear indication that the new covenant as referred to in the New Testament is not entirely Jewish. In fact, only one reference clearly relates the term new covenant to Israel, and this is found in Hebrews 8:8. A study of this reference and its context is the key to the New Testament revelation on the new covenant with Israel.

New Testament Teaching on the New Covenant with Israel

The Epistle to the Hebrews by its title is addressed to the Jewish people. The epistle is planned to show that Christ and Christian doctrine supersedes Moses and the Mosaic covenant. The argument in Hebrews eight proceeds on the revelation that Christ is mediator of a better covenant than Moses, established on better promises. At this point, the writer shows that the Mosaic covenant was never intended to be eternal (in contrast to other Jewish covenants) and that the Old Testament itself anticipated the day of its passing. To prove this point, the passage from Jeremiah on the new covenant is quoted (Heb 8:8–12). The quotation is not an exact translation of the Hebrew, but the variations are not significant in the general argument. The writer of Hebrews points out that the word new in itself shows that the Mosaic covenant was to end. He declares that the Mosaic covenant is now about to vanish away.

The Hebrews eight passage has been the center of controversy on the fulfillment of the new covenant with Israel. The amillennialist insists that here is positive proof that the church fulfills the covenant given to Israel. Dr. Oswald T. Allis, for instance, states: “The passage speaks of the new covenant. It declares that this new covenant has been already introduced and that by virtue of the fact it is called ‘new’ it has made the one which it is replacing ‘old,’ and that the old is about to vanish away. It would be hard to find a clearer reference to the gospel age in the Old Testament than in these verses in Jeremiah.”[5]

Dr. Allis has stated well the amillennial position, and has also himself indicated its fallacy, in the opinion of the writer, by begging the question. He states that the Hebrews passage “declares that this new covenant has been already introduced.”[6] The passage states that 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 identical with the “new covenant with the house of Israel,” or that the new covenant with Israel has been introduced. The argument of the passage does not hinge on this point at all, but rather on whether the Old Testament in any way anticipated an end to the Mosaic covenant. This the Old Testament does, but it does not follow that the new covenant of the Old Testament is identical with the better covenant of Hebrews.

There is no appeal at all to the content of the new covenant with Israel as being identical with the better covenant of which Hebrews speaks. The very absence of such an appeal is as strong as any argument from silence can be. It would have been a crushing blow to the opponents of the Christian order among the Jews to be faced with a quotation which described in detail the promises of God to the church. The writer instead merely refers to the word new and goes on to show in Hebrews nine how the Christian order superseded the sacraments of the Mosaic covenant.

Dr. Allis has, however, done premillennialism a service in demanding consistency on interpretation of this passage. Either the church fulfills the new covenant with Israel or it does not. While the writer has great respect for the Biblical scholarship of Dr. C. I. Scofield, he is inclined to agree with Dr. Allis that Scofield is not clear on this point in his Scofield Reference Bible. It is more consistent with the whole premillennial position to hold that the new covenant realized to-day by the church is different than the new covenant with the house of Israel than to hold that it fulfills it in part. The issue, after all, is whether the church inherits Israel’s promises. If it inherits any of them, the door is left open to the amillennial position. The proper doctrine is rather that while many of the blessings of the church are similar to those promised Israel, the promises to Israel remain intact to be fulfilled entirely by Israel. While the church may claim promises specified in the “new covenant” when it is not identified with Israel’s new covenant, it should remain on its own ground of blessing in Christ.

Another problem of interpretation may be mentioned, though Dr. Allis does not refer to it. In Hebrews 10:16, 17, a further reference is made to the new covenant with Israel.

Here the argument is on the question of whether the sacrifice of Christ supersedes the sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant. Appeal is made to the new covenant with Israel in that it promises that sins will be forgiven and remembered no more. As in any sin-offering the sins are remembered, this would require a sacrifice once and for all, as provided in Christ. Again, it should be noted that there is no statement that the new covenant with Israel is identical with the new covenant for the church.

In Romans 11:26, 27, a confirmation of the conclusions reached in the study of Hebrews eight is found. Here the new covenant with the house of Israel is quoted in part and referred to the future national restoration of Israel, as has been discussed in previous articles.[7] If Romans 11:25, 26 refer to a future restoration of Israel as a nation, an event distinct from God’s program for the church, then the New Testament itself interprets Jeremiah 31:31–34 as referring to a future time. In other words, while Hebrews eight does not make any statement on the time of fulfillment of the new covenant with Israel, the Romans passage states this definitely. We may conclude that the New Testament does not ever state that the new covenant with Israel is now being fulfilled, but rather that it specifies that it will be fulfilled at the time of Israel’s restoration as a nation, in that day when “all Israel shall be saved.”

Conclusions

While it has not been possible within the limits of this discussion to consider all aspects of the doctrine, certain important conclusions have been reached. The promises given to Israel in the form of a new covenant were found to remain unfulfilled to this hour. Any literal interpretation of the passages requires events and circumstances which are not a part of this age. Both the postmillennial and amillennial views were shown to depend upon spiritualizing the key words and important statements of the passage. Of the three views held by premillennialists, the view that the new covenant is exclusively and only for Israel was rejected. The use of the term new covenant in connection with the Lord’s Supper as celebrated by both Jews and Gentiles in the church was taken as evidence. Of the remaining views, the position that there are two new covenants, one for Israel to be fulfilled in the millennium and another for the church in this age, was found preferable. The sacrifice of Christ is the basis of any gracious covenant and remains the ground for fulfillment of God’s promised mercies both for the church and for the nation Israel.

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1909), p. 589.
2. Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1945), p. 42.
3. Pp. 1297-8, note.
4. Allis, op. cit., p. 155.
5. Op. cit., p. 154.
6. Idem.
7. Cf. Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September 1945, pp. 280-290, October-December 1945, pp. 405-416.

Eschatological Problems IX: Israel’s Restoration

By John F. Walvoord

[Author’s Note: In the previous article on Israel’s Blindness, it was pointed out that there were three views of the meaning of the phrase, “all Israel,” in Romans 11:26: (1) all believers; (2) Jews as a people; (3) Jews as a whole or as a nation. It was further shown that Romans 11:25 taught a future restoration for Israel after the fullness of the Gentiles is concluded and that this restoration had two phases: (a) immediate lifting of their blindness, (b) restoration as a nation at the second coming of Christ. The implications of Romans 11:26 were reserved for the present article.]

The confusion in the minds of expositors of Scripture concerning the meaning of Romans 11:26 is one of the obvious facts of Biblical interpretation. Not only various schools of thought disagree, but the passage is a problem to all. An important clue to its interpretation is found in its preceding context. The entire chapter of Romans eleven deals with the question, “Did God cast off his people?” (Rom 11:1). The answer given to this leading question is that “God did not cast off his people which he foreknew” (Rom 11:2). The argument proceeds to point out that there has always been a remnant of Israel who believed both under the law and under grace. The fact that this group were only a small portion of the nation of Israel is explained as the occasion for the present grace extended to Gentiles: “I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall? God forbid: but by their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy” (Rom 11:11). The argument then turns on the point that if the unbelief and “fall” of Israel as a nation was the occasion of blessing on the Gentiles, how much more will be the blessing on both Gentiles and Israel when Israel comes into its fullness of blessing: “Now if their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?” (Rom 11:12). These facts combine to serve as a warning to Gentiles not to be high-minded and serve as an encouragement to Israel that a future time of blessing is in store. The contrast throughout the passage is not between the believer and unbeliever, but between Gentiles as such and Israel as a nation. In Romans 11:25, the issue is brought to a head with the revelation that Israel’s present blindness and unbelief will be concluded at the same time that the present Gentile opportunity is ended. Then follows the event described as “all Israel” being delivered.

The issues involved in the passage under consideration can be resolved into a series of questions: (1) What is the meaning of “all Israel”? (2) What is the nature of the deliverance? (3) When will the deliverance occur? (4) What are the concomitant events? Any answer to these questions involves both premises based on interpretation of the entire Scriptures and exegesis of the passage itself. The history of its interpretation has revealed a tendency to determine the meaning of the passage largely on the basis of other Scriptures. Hence, most amillennialists have denied that the reference is to Israel in the flesh and have given a spiritual interpretation of the passage. Premillennialists have insisted upon a more literal exegesis. The issue is determined by the meaning of key words.

What Is the Meaning of “All Israel”?

It is apparent that the construction placed upon the word Israel practically determines the exegesis of the entire passage. The question is answered by at least three important considerations: (1) What is the use of the word in the context? (2) What is the use of the word in the New Testament as a whole” (3) What is the relation of the question to doctrine in general?

A study of the context bears out the fact that the word Israel as used in this passage is in contrast to Gentile. This is clear in Romans 11:1, where Paul identifies himself as an Israelite because of his connection with the tribe of Benjamin—a racial and national relation rather than spiritual. The contrast is made further in Romans 11:11ff. The use of “ye,” i.e., the Gentiles, is opposed to “they,” i.e., the Jews. In other words, the entire chapter carefully preserves the distinction between two classes—Jews and Gentiles. Further, the Gentiles are in most cases those who have believed in Christ and members of the church. The contrast is not, therefore, between believing Israel and unbelieving Gentiles, but rather the two groups are treated racially. There is no ground whatever in this passage for the idea that Israel is a reference to all believers as such—the interpretation advanced by Origen, furthered by Calvin, and embraced by most amillennialists. This interpretation would nullify the very theme of the chapter .

The immediate context also brings out the contrast between Israel and Gentiles. In Romans 11:25, both terms occur in contrast. As far as the general context and the immediate context is concerned, there is no ground for spiritualizing the word Israel. Even A. T. Robertson, who is not a premillennialist, rather reluctantly admits that the context would indicate that the Jewish people are indicated.[1] Charles Hodge, who is also not a premillennialist, states flatly, “Israel, here, from the context, must mean the Jewish people, and all Israel, the whole nation. The Jews, as a people, are now rejected; as a people, they are to be restored.”[2] The amillenial view that Israel refers to all believers must be held in spite of the context. It is noteworthy that Dr. Oswald T. Allis, who more than any other recent amillennial writer has attempted formally to refute premillennialism, passes by Romans 11:26 with only a footnote reference[3] in which he tries to sustain his thesis that Romans eleven says nothing of Israel’s restoration.[4] In brief, his argument is that if Paul believed in Israel’s restoration he would have mentioned restoration to the land. In other words, because Paul does not include all the elements of Israel’s restoration, he cannot be speaking on the subject at all. If words are to be taken in their ordinary meaning, Paul is speaking of Israel’s spiritual and national restoration throughout the chapter. The fact is that Romans 11:26 is an embarrassing passage to the amillennial school of interpretation and, as they have no satisfactory interpretation of it, they are prone to give none.

The predicament of the amillennialist in interpreting Romans 11:26 is further disclosed by examination of their theory that Israel as a term is constantly used in the New Testament as a synonym of the church composed of both Jews and Gentiles. Their prejudice is expressed well by Dr. Allis when he states that when the Brethren Movement “insisted that Israel must mean Israel, and that the kingdom promises in the Old Testament concern Israel and are to be fulfilled to Israel literally” that they were “carrying to an almost unprecedented extreme that literalism which is characteristic of Millenarianism.”[5] Yet Allis himself admits that premillennialism “was extensively held in the Early Church,”[6] and that it was superseded only when Augustine advanced the idea that the millennium was “to be interpreted spiritually as fulfilled in the Christian Church.”[7] As a matter of fact even a casual study of the writings of the early Fathers reveals that millenarianism was not only “extensively held” but was in fact the outstanding characteristic of early Christian eschatology. Dr. Wilbur Smith in his review of Dr. Allis’ book quotes Schaff to this effect: “The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius.”[8] Dr. Allis’ “unprecedented literalism” was, in the impartial hands of doctrinal historians, the prevailing opinion of the church until the perversions of Augustine and Roman Catholicism began to have weight. After all, is it such “unprecedented literalism” to believe that the Bible means Israel when it uses the term? Is not the burden of proof on the amillennialist to prove that the word means other than its ordinary meaning?

It is not difficult to prove from Scripture that Israel is frequently used in the New Testament to mean what it meant in the Old Testament—the nation descending from Abraham through Jacob. Further, there is not a single reference in the New Testament to Israel which cannot be taken in its plain meaning. Not a single instance requires the term to include Gentiles. As this subject has been treated in a previous article, it will not be further discussed here.[9] In a word, there is no justification based on usage in the New Testament to interpret the word Israel as ever including Gentiles.

The question remains concerning the relation of the passage to Biblical doctrine as a whole. This involves the issues which determine premillennialism and amillennialism as systems of doctrines—a subject which is too large to be treated here. This much is clear: the premillennial system of interpretation is in full harmony with the interpretation that Israel in this passage refers to Jews in the flesh rather than to all believers, Jews and Gentiles alike. The amillennial system demands that the passage be spiritualized or their whole system is in jeopardy. The nature of the argument is illuminating, however. The amillennialist usually argues that Israel must be spiritualized because to do otherwise involves what is to him the extreme literalism that Israel means Israel. In other words, he argues from the system of doctrine to its necessary interpretation of the passage. On the other hand, the premillennialist appeals to the immediate context—the contrast between Israel and Gentiles; the general context—the discussion of Gentile privilege because of Israel’s fall; and the usage in the New Testament as a whole. From the standpoint of arriving at Biblical doctrine, the hermeneutics of the premillennial argument is obviously sound.

A difficulty for all systems of interpretation is the use of the word all. What is meant when it is stated that “all Israel shall be saved”? This has been referred to as a difficulty of the premillennial interpretation. Obviously, all Israel are not saved. Israel in view in the prophecy must first of all be limited to living Israel, that is, those living on earth at the time. It is not true that all Israelites of all generations are to be saved. Further, the Scriptures reveal that a large portion of Israel will be martyred during the time of trouble preceding the consummation of the period before the second coming of Christ (Zech 13:8, 9). There are other complications in the doctrine when the judgment on Israel is taken into consideration (Ezek 20:33–38). What is meant, then, by all?

Before attempting to answer the question, it should be noted that the same difficulty attends the amillennial view, or any other view which attempts to find an actual event in this passage. While Israel according to the amillennialist means “all believers,” it is also obvious that all believers are not saved at the end of the age by the coming of Christ. For the proper interpretation of the passage both principal millennial views must limit the fulfillment to those living at the time. The difficulty is not, then, a result of the premillennial viewpoint.

The most obvious answer to the question of the meaning of all is found in the context. The all is in antithesis to the in part of Romans 11:25 and the remnant of verse five. During the present age a remnant of Israel is saved through the Gospel. The hardening or blindness is “in part.” When Christ returns, the situation will be changed. Instead of a remnant, instead of a small part, Israel as a whole will be saved. It will be a national deliverance. A. T. Robertson while attempting to defend postmillennialism in his interpretation admits: “All Israel (pas Israēl). What does Paul mean? The immediate context (use of pas in contrast to apo merous, plērōma here in contrast with plērōma in verse 12) argues for the Jewish people ‘as a whole’.”[10] He goes on to express his opinion that other Scripture (Rom 9:6; Gal 6:16) may justify the teaching that both Jew and Gentile or “spiritual Israel may be the idea.”[11]

The opinion of Charles Hodge is worthy of weight as he is not arguing for premillennialism: “Israel, here, from the context, must mean the Jewish people, and all Israel, the whole nation. The Jews, as a people, are now rejected; as a people, they are to be restored. As their rejection, although national, did not include the rejection of every individual; so their restoration, although in like manner national, need not be assumed to include the salvation of every individual Jew. πᾶς ᾿Λσραὴλ is not therefore to be here understood to mean, all the true people of God, as Augustine, Calvin, and many others explain it; nor all the elect Jews, i.e., all that part of the nation which constitute ‘the remnant according to the election of grace’; but the whole nation, as a nation.”[12] The viewpoint that “all Israel” means “Israel as a whole” is not “an almost unprecedented extreme” of “literalism which is characteristic of Millenarianism,”[13] as Dr. Allis would have us believe, nor is it a peculiarity of a little sect of Plymouth Brethren. It is the interpretation of those who believe that Israel means Israel, whether premillennial or postmillennial, and it is the only interpretation which makes sense out of the eleventh chapter of Romans. Professor William Hendriksen, professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary and an avowed amillennialist, interestingly disagrees with Dr. Allis and holds that all Israel refers to the total number of elect Israel in all ages—i.e., holds to a literal interpretation of the passage. This is, to say the least, an improvement on Augustine, Calvin, and Allis, though it misses the point of the context.[14] The deliverance predicted in Romans 11:26 is, clearly, a group deliverance rather than individual salvation. This is borne out in the explanation which follows in the chapter .

What Is the Nature of the Deliverance?

The salvation of “all Israel” is described as a fulfillment of prophecy. Isaiah 59:20–21 is quoted in part in Romans 11:26, 27. The full quotation in Isaiah is as follows: “And a Redeemer will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith Jehovah. And as for me, this is my covenant with them, said Jehovah: my Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith Jehovah, from henceforth and forever.” Three things are mentioned specifically in the Romans quotation: (1) the Redeemer shall come out of Zion; (2) He shall turn ungodliness from Jacob; (3) this is a covenant to be fulfilled “when I shall take away their sins.”

All views of the millennium agree that the Deliverer is the Lord Jesus Christ. Question has been raised concerning the meaning of “out of Zion.” The Hebrew of Isaiah 59:20 is correctly rendered “to Zion.” The LXX has interpreted this to mean “for Zion”: ἕ́εκεν Σιών. Paul in quoting the Hebrew uses neither the Hebrew nor the LXX when he quotes the passage as “from Zion”: ἐκ Σιών. How is this difficulty to be solved and what is the meaning of Zion? It is clear that Paul is here not directly quoting but is gathering up various passages in one statement. It will be noticed that his reference to turning away ungodliness is not in the Isaiah passage either. The Scriptures speak of Christ as both coming to Zion and from Zion (cf. Ps 14:7; 20:2; 53:6; 110:2; 128:5; 134:3; 135:21; Isa 2:3; Joel 3:16; Amos 1:2). It is certainly to quibble with words to argue, as Dr. Allis does, that this change of wording favors the amillennial view that a heavenly city is intended.[15] In the nature of the case Christ must come “to Zion” before He comes “from Zion.” The deliverance promised Israel is not per se His second coming, but His rule on earth after His coming.

What is meant by Zion? This term has been used in reference to the city of Jerusalem or parts of it “at least since the time of David.”[16] A study of its usage in the Old Testament reveals that its meaning is literal, that is, it is always associated with the earthly Zion. Its use in the New Testament is also literal. The only cases in question are the references in Hebrews 12:22 and Revelation 14:1, which readily yield to a literal interpretation if the premillennial viewpoint be adopted in interpreting the passages as a whole. In no case does Zion become merely a “heavenly city.”[17] The many predictions in the Old Testament foretelling the coming of the Deliverer “out of Zion” (see references above) argue for a literal interpretation.

When the Deliverer comes, He will “turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” This is an event, not a process extending over ages of time. It is the subject of much Old Testament prophecy. It is part and parcel of the new covenant which Romans 11:27 mentions. A classic Old Testament passage bearing on the subject is Jeremiah 31:31–37. A new covenant is promised the house of Israel. In this new covenant, Jehovah promises: “I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sins will I remember no more” (Jer 31:33, 34). The passage then goes on to declare that Israel will endure as a nation under this new covenant as long as the ordinances of the sun, moon and stars endure. The passage concludes: “Thus saith Jehovah: If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, then will I also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith Jehovah” (Jer 31:37). In brief, the new covenant promised the house of Israel is precisely what Paul refers to in Romans 11:26–27. The elements are the same: Israel is promised blessing as a group or nation; “all” are to be blessed; “all” are to know the Lord; “all” are to be forgiven. Certainly this is not the picture of Israel in any period of its history until now. A literal fulfillment demands an interpretation of Romans 11:26, 27 which is in accord with the premillennial position. The fact that believers in this age enjoy a “new covenant” of grace and blessing does not hinder the future fulfillment of this promise to Israel, which is in no wise being fulfilled now.

The premillennial interpretation of Scripture adds a great deal to the bare outline provided in Romans 11:26, 27. According to this viewpoint, the deliverance will be more than spiritual. Israel will be in the great tribulation and threatened with extermination (Matt 24:15–22). The coming of Christ will deliver them from physical harm. This is in view of their coming spiritual blessing which will be their portion after being judged and brought into the land of promise. These events are the means to the end—the spiritual blessing on Israel throughout the millennium. To argue that all the details of the complicated series of events which will bring Gentile power to its end and establish the kingdom of Christ on earth must be in this portion of Romans in order to establish the premillennial view of the future, is an example of the error of arguing from silence.[18]

When Will the Prophesied Deliverance Occur?

The amillennial viewpoint of Romans 11:25, 26 among other things does manifest injustice to the chronology of the passage. Whether the view of traditional amillennialism be followed, or the recent view of Professor Hendriksen that “all Israel” refers to elect Israel in all ages, the interpretation contradicts the order of events indicated in Romans eleven .

The point of the entire chapter is that the present age is one of blessing to Gentiles and that this follows Israel’s fall. During this age some in Israel come to Christ and are saved, but the nation as a whole goes on in hardness or blindness and in unbelief. According to Romans 11:25, 26, the present situation is going to change when the fullness of the Gentiles, i.e., the present period of Gentile blessing, comes to its close. The terminus of Gentile blessing is the point in time when Israel’s blindness is lifted. When Israel’s blindness is lifted, the way is opened for the work of the Deliverer who will bring spiritual restoration as well as physical. The order of events is therefore: (1) Israel’s fall; (2) Gentile fullness of blessing; (3) Israel’s blindness lifted; (4) Israel’s Deliverer comes out of Zion; (5) Israel is turned away from ungodliness and her covenants are fulfilled. Now, manifestly, Israel fell as a nation. The reference is not to believing Israel or true Israel. Likewise, Israel is blind as a nation. Believing Israel is not blinded even in this age. So also “all Israel” refers not to believers in this age or in any previous age, but to the entire group which enter the millennium. To make “all Israel” “all believers” as Dr. Allis does, or “all Jewish believers,” as Professor Hendriksen does, is to blur the distinctions which are so carefully maintained in the entire passage. A study of the entire chapter including verses 28–32 reveals that the antithesis of “ye” and “they,” i.e., present believers as in contrast to “all Israel,” is carefully preserved throughout.

The deliverance of “all Israel” is not a process but an event. The time of the event is clearly when the Deliverer comes out of Zion, an event following the return of Christ in His second coming. The prophesied deliverance is, therefore, a future event and a single event. The great prophetic passages of the Old Testament upon which this prophecy is based do not have any harmony with the present undertaking of God. It is evident that it is not true today that everyone knows the Lord, that it is no longer necessary to teach our neighbors. This is not true for Gentiles and it is certainly not true for Israel. The future revelation of Christ to Israel will fulfill these predictions and bring the prophesied time of blessing for God’s ancient people.

What Are the Concomitant Events?

The predictions of Romans 11:25ff involve important doctrinal considerations beyond the revelation explicitly made. This explains why its interpretation has been characterized rather sharply by the school of interpretation represented. The premillennial interpretation has as its background important considerations. The restoration of Israel as a nation involves the Davidic Covenant.[19] It involves Israel’s continuance as a nation and possession of the land.[20] It involves the separation of the purposes of God for the church, believers in this age, and for Israel. The themes of Scripture bearing on the time of great tribulation for Israel, the consummation of Gentile power, the second coming of Christ, the judgment of the Gentiles, the resurrection of Israel and her judgment, the judgment of Israel still in the flesh, and many other important doctrines are directly or indirectly related. It is not claimed that Romans eleven in itself settles all the problems or that it alone establishes the main premises of premillennialism. What is claimed is that a literal interpretation of Romans eleven is in full harmony with prophecy which has been and is being fulfilled and that it fits perfectly the general scheme of the premillennial interpretation of Scripture. If the statements of this chapter be taken in their ordinary meaning without resource to allegorical or spiritual interpretation of the key words, the inevitable conclusion is that we have here in broad outline God’s program: present blessing for Gentiles, future restoration and blessing for Israel as a nation. We say with Paul in the sense we believe he meant: “Did God cast off his people? God forbid.”

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 398.
2. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1909), p. 589.
3. Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1945), p. 305.
4. Ibid., p. 100.
5. Ibid., p. 218.
6. Ibid., p. 7.
7. Ibid., p. 3.
8. Sunday School Times, November 24, 1945, p. 940.
9. Bibliotheca Sacra, October-December 1944, pp. 403-16.
10. Op. cit., p. 398.
11. Idem.
12. Op. cit., p. 589.
13. Op. cit., p. 218.
14. “And So All Israel Shall Be Saved” (Baker’s Book Store, 1945), p. 33.
15. Ibid., p. 305.
16. International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, s.v., “Zion.”
17. Allis, op. cit., p. 305.
18. Idem.
19. Cf. Bibliotheca Sacra, April-June 1945, “The Fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant,” pp. 153-66.
20. Cf. Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March 1945, “The Fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant,” pp. 27-36.

Eschatological Problems VIII: Israel’s Blindness

By John F. Walvoord

Almost every aspect of the predicted future for Israel constitutes a decisive factor in the structure of prophetic interpretation. The construction that is placed upon passages in Scripture dealing with the future of Israel inevitably determines the whole scope of eschatology. One of the obvious facts which all systems must face is that Israel is just as surely in the New Testament as in the Old, and the phenomena of the preservation of Israel as a distinct people through centuries of dispersion have called for some adequate explanation.

Among those who take Scripture seriously, two attitudes have emerged. Some have denied any future to Israel, attempting to find all of Israel’s future included in the Christian church, i.e., whatever future is assigned to them is identical with that of Gentile believers. Others have held that there is a future day of blessing for Israel as a distinct people. The former view is held by those who follow an amillennial interpretation of prophecy, while the latter view is held by the postmillennial and premillennial systems of interpretation. With the current disrepute of postmillennielism, it has remained for the premillennial and amillennial systems to uphold their respective interpretations. The issue is rather clearly drawn, though too often the premises assumed settle the argument before it begins. It is the thesis of this discussion that the amillennial viewpoint involves a distortion of numerous passages of Scripture and an oversimplification of eschatology which is not warranted by the prophetic Word. The issue of Israel’s future should be settled by investigation into the plain statements of Scripture regarding it. To this end, the present article deals with a crucial and important doctrine in the eschatology of Israel, viz., the subject of Israel’s spiritual blindness. It is predicted in Scripture that the present blindness of Israel will in the future be removed and that certain important results will follow. The nature and importance of this doctrine will be evident in its effect on the structure of eschatology.

Four Interpretations

The key passage to the doctrine of Israel’s blindness or “hardening” is found in Romans 11:25—”For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits—, that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” The passage seems to reveal that a blindness or hardening has befallen Israel at the present time, that this blindness will terminate at the time designated as the “fulness of the Gentiles.” The verse following which constitutes a part of the same sentence goes on, “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn ungodliness from Jacob.” In other words, there seems to be a definite time sequence: first, Israel is blind, then Israel’s blindness is ended and “all Israel shall be saved.” The passage calls for specific events which involve the whole scheme of prophecy. Does Israel have a future? Is there a day coming of spiritual blessing for Israel? When will “all Israel” be saved?

In an attempt to answer these leading questions, at least four interpretations of the passage have arisen. Origen, the father of the allegorical method of interpretation, seems to be the originator of the idea that the passage teaches only the general truth that there will be opposition and blindness in relation to the Gospel which will be gradually overcome, resulting in the end in “all Israel,” meaning according to him, all believers, being saved. This interpretation, of course, robs the passage of any specific meaning and does violence to its terms.

The attitude of the Reformers was only a slight improvement on Origen. Encouraged perhaps by the prominence given this verse by the ardent millenarians of that day, they denied that the passage taught any general future conversion of Israel, affirming that it merely taught that the hardened and blind condition of Israel did not prevent some from entering the church. The prejudice against allowing any foothold for the millenarians is illustrated in Calvin’s deliberate mistranslation of the “until” into “that,” and by Luther’s famous statement to the effect that the Jews are the devil’s children and impossible to convert (zu bekehren ist unmöglich).[1] Calvin, like Origen, makes “all Israel equivalent to the “whole people of God,” i.e., the church.[2] The effect of both views is to deny Israel any literal fulfillment of their prophetic future and to consider them cut off forever as a people.

The third type of interpretation is typical of nineteenth century postmillennialism and Charles Hodge may be taken as an example. Holding, as does any consistent postmillennial system, that there is going to be a fulfillment of the prophecies relative to an earthly kingdom of peace and righteousness on the earth, they find the fulfillment of the many promises, related to Israel in this period. Charles Hodge, accordingly, interpreted Romans 11:25 as predicting “a great and general conversion of the Jewish people, which should take place when the fulness of the Gentiles had been brought in, and that then, and not till then, those prophecies should be fully accomplished which speak of the salvation of Israel.”[3] He goes on to write that this view has been the position of every age of the church except the period of the Reformers. He lists eight formal arguments in support of this interpretation.

The fourth interpretation is typical of twentieth century premillennialism. It holds with the postmillennial viewpoint that Israel has a future, but it insists, that this future is more than a mere spiritual revival. The future of Israel, is a restoration of Israel as a nation as well as a people, and it involves the fulfillment of a literal kingdom on earth with Christ as King. The present age is one of Gentile blessing; the future age will be one of Israel’s blessing. The two periods are just as distinct as that of Israel before Pentecost and the present age. It is a new dispensation in which the place of Gentiles and Israel in privilege and blessing is reversed, Now is the time of the fulness of Gentile blessing and privilege. The future day will place Israel first.

The problem of interpretation raised in this discussion is solved by proper exegesis of Romans 11:25 in its context. It may be observed before turning to this, however, that the viewpoint of Origen or of Luther is no solution to the problem at all. The allegorical system of interpretation of which Origen is the father is theological quicksand for this doctrine as for all others. If the Scriptures are to be subject to a fanciful interpretation according to the whims of the interpreter, it is obvious that no solution to any problem can be found for the simple reason that the very existence of the problem is denied. Problems arise from an attempt to arrive at the plain and literal meaning of the Scriptures. The viewpoint of the Reformers in regard to Israel is also unsatisfactory and provides no solution to the problem of interpretation. Their attitude was obviously prejudiced and their interpretation is governed by opinion rather than exegesis. In the heat of the controversies of the Reformation, the millennial issue was cast aside rather than weighed, and the future of Israel in Scripture suffered the same fate. The doctrinal problem of Israel’s future must be solved by an appeal to the written Word and an attempt to find its revelation on this important theme.

What Has Befallen Israel?

It is the plain teaching of Romans 11:25 that something has happened to Israel. What occurred is described as a “blindness” (King James Version) or “hardening” (Revised Version). The Greek word πώρωσις refers to “the covering with a callus” (Thayer). In the other two instances in which it occurs in the New Testament (Mark 3:5; Eph 4:18) it is used with τῆς καρδίας and refers to “hardening of the heart.” The absence of the qualifying clause in Romans 11:25 left the translators in a dilemma and occasioned the various translations “blindness” or dulling of the sight, and “hardening” or dulling of the senses more generally. According to A. T. Robertson, the word is used by Hippocrates as a medical term, and means in the New Testament, “obtuseness of intellectual discernment, mental dulness.”[4] From the word itself, then, it is clear that the affliction befailing Israel has to do with their reception of God’s message and revelation. In respect to this, they are blind or hardened. What is the nature of this blindness?

It is the position of most commentators who deal with this problem that the blindness of Israel had a long history before Christ. It is not difficult to trace the lack of understanding on the part of Israel of God’s revelation and purposes throughout the entire Old Testament period. Certainly in the time of Moses, during the Judges, and the periods of the early and latter prophets, Israel manifested a dullness of spiritual understanding of which Isaiah complained. Paul refers to this frequently by reference to Moses, David, and Isaiah in Romans ten and eleven. It is also clear that the whole human race without distinction between Israel and Gentiles are spiritually blind by virtue of their depravity and cannot see apart from a work of God in enabling grace. In what sense has something befallen Israel which is unusual and distinct?

The key to the problem is afforded by the use of the word mystery. The doctrine of Romans 11:25 is referred to as a “mystery.” By this word reference is made to a doctrine which had not been revealed prior to the New Testament revelation but which is now fully made known—as Robertson puts it, “the revealed will of God now made known to all.”[5] In whatever sense, then, Israel was blind before Christ, a new judgment of God has fallen upon them after rejecting Christ. Whereas the former blindness had to do with the prophetic revelation, the latter blindness had to do with the fulfillment in Christ. Israel, which of all nations should have recognized the credentials of Christ, leads the Gentiles in being slow of hearing and understanding. By designating Israel’s blindness as a mystery, a new aspect is therefore added.

It is also included in the revelation that this blindness is “in part.” The expression ἀπὸ μέρους translated “in part” quite clearly refers to the fact that the blindness is not universal. The veil is lifted for some at least, and individual Jews like Paul have believed in Christ. The thought is not that all Israel is partially blinded. While the majority of Israel are unusually and distinctively blinded, a few are granted as exceptions and this occasions the “in part.” Whether or not Martin Luther can be persuaded that he was wrong in denying that Romans teaches Jews can be converted, it is rather obvious that this is the teaching of the passage. The situation of blindness in part is the abiding condition of Israel in this age.

What Is the Meaning of Until?

The central teaching of the passage revolves on the preposition until (ἄχρι οὖ). The condition of Israel’s blindness is revealed to continue up to a certain point at which it is terminated. That this expression is crucial to the interpretation is borne out by the attempts to alter its force. Calvin, for instance, changes it to “that,” making the blindness of Israel a factor in bringing about the fullness of the Gentiles. This is a clear violation of the meaning of the expression. As Charles Hodge states, “The words…cannot, so consistently with usage, be translated, as long as, or so that, followed as they are here by the aorist subjunctive; see Rev. xv.8, xvii.17; compare Heb. iii.13 .”[6] A. T. Robertson follows the same translation, labeling the clause a “temporal clause” meaning “until which time.”[7] Its basic meaning is “up to.”[8] In the language of Thayer it indicates “the terminus ad quem.” If we are willing to accept the plain meaning of the Greek text, we must recognize that this passage teaches two distinct situations: one, in which Israel is blinded in part; two, in which this blindness is removed. This is what the passage states and any tampering with it is confession of prejudice.

When Will Israel’s Blindness Be Ended?

The exegesis of Romans 11:25 has indicated a predicted time when Israel’s blindness will be ended. This time is described as the point in the prophetic program when “the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” This expression which occurs only here in the New Testament has given rise to many interpretations. Dr. Charles Feinberg summarizes the various viewpoints as follows: “Sanday and Headlam maintain that τὸ πλήρωμα refers to the Gentile world as a whole. Griffith Thomas refers the time to the close of the Gentile dispensation. Faber, Stifler, Brookes, and Chalmers are all of the opinion that the time referred to is identical with ‘the times of the Gentiles.’ Godet, after denoting the fulness of the Gentiles as the totality of the Gentile nations, designates the time as ‘the times of the Gentiles.’ Bosworth contends that reference is made to the large majority of the Gentile population of the world, while Govett thinks the phrase refers to the elect of this dispensation out of all nations. Moule holds that εἰσέλθῃ (‘be come in’) refers to a time when the ingathering of the Gentile children of God will be not at an end, but running high.”[9] There is obviously much difference of opinion on the subject.

It is not necessary to the argument that Romans 11:25 predicts a future time of blessing for Israel to settle with finality the meaning of the expression “fulness of the Gentiles.” It clarifies the situation, however, to arrive at some understanding of the meaning of the term. While the Scriptures do not explicitly expound the term, it is evidently the antithesis of the “fulness” of Israel mentioned in Romans 11:12, “Now if the fall of them [Israel] be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their [Israel’s] fulness?” The present age is the time of the fall of Israel and the riches of the Gentiles. The passage clearly implies that in a future period the fulness of Israel will come and that in it the Gentiles will have even more blessing than at present. The meaning of the passage is, then, simply that the Gentiles will have their full time of blessing and that this will be followed by Israel’s time of blessing. The “until” of Romans 11:25 would mark the close of the Gentile period as such.

Within the bounds of the premillennial interpretation of Scripture, a problem remains regarding the termination of the period of Gentile blessing. In Luke 21:24, Christ referred to the “times of the Gentiles” as continuing as long as Jerusalem is “trodden down of the Gentiles.” The reference in Luke is to the political domination of Jerusalem by Gentiles which began with the fall of Jerusalem at the time of the captivity and has continued to the present day. While the terminology is not significant in itself, from the context of the two passages involved, it seems clear that the expression “times of the Gentiles” has reference to political domination of Gentiles, while the expression “fulness of the Gentiles” has reference to Gentile blessing and opportunity in this present age. If this analysis is correct, the times of the Gentiles and the fulness of the Gentiles are two entirely different ideas. The times of the Gentiles began long before Christ and will continue until Christ returns to establish His kingdom. The fulness of the Gentiles began at Pentecost and will continue only as long as the present age of grace. From the standpoint of eschatology, the important point is that the fulness of the Gentiles will come to its close before the times of the Gentiles are run out. Accepting the usual interpretation that the church, the body of Christ, will be caught up with Christ to glory before the time of tribulation predicted for Daniel’s seventieth week, it seems clear that the fulness of the Gentiles will come abruptly to its close when the church is caught up to heaven. If so, we have here the terminus of the fulness of the Gentiles and the terminus of Israel’s blindness.

Two Aspects of Israel’s Restoration

A problem frequently overlooked by premillennial writers who accept the solution of Romans 11:25 given above is that the Scriptures do not confirm any immediate change in “all Israel” after the rapture. During the tribulation period it is only a remnant which turn to Christ. It seems clear that the majority of Jews as well as Gentiles worship the beasts of Revelation 13 instead of Christ, and that the Jews reestablish their ancient worship in Jerusalem in unbelief rather than in acceptance of their Messiah. How then is Israel’s blindness lifted?

The answer seems to be that the restoration of Israel is in two major steps. At the rapture of the church, Gentiles again take second place in God’s program and the Jew resumes his place. It is a time of Gentile domination but not of Gentile blessing. The unfulfilled program of the seventieth week of Daniel is completed during the final period before the second coming of Christ. During this period among unbelieving Jews, the Mosaic laws and sacrifices are reinstituted. As far as Israel as a whole is concerned, there is no evidence of a large turning to Christ. During this period, however, a remnant turn to Christ. Apparently the very act of the rapture of the church serves to confirm to those who are honestly seeking their Messiah, howbeit in blindness, that Jesus of Nazareth is the true Messiah and the only Savior. Overnight after the church is caught up, many of Israel have their eyes opened to the truth and immediately become the evangels of the period. The special blindness which was Israel’s judgment during the time of Gentile blessing is removed, and the Jew resumes his place.

The language of Romans 11:25 in this connection must be carefully noted. While it is revealed that the special blindness peculiar to Israel is lifted, the passage does not reveal any distinct enlightenment. The Jew is restored to an equal place with the Gentile in the matter of discernment of the Gospel rather than to a place of greater privilege. The release, such as it is, will undoubtedly occasion a great turning to Christ among Israel after the rapture of the church, but by no means is the entire nation won to Christ. The Scriptures are relatively silent on the details, but there is evidence that a remnant turn to Christ (cf. the 144,000 of Revelation 7) and, that many do not turn to Christ (cf. the reestablishment of sacrifices and the Mosaic worship). While therefore the special blindness of Israel is lifted at the time of the rapture of the church, Israel is still in the same difficulty as the Gentile in that he is naturally blind to the Gospel and dead in sin. Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in this period, certainly essential to salvation then as now, none of Israel would be saved even after the blindness is taken away.

The consummation of God’s purpose in delivering Israel from their special blindness is found in the remnant that greets Christ at His second coming. It seems clear that before Christ returns Israel will turn to Christ and will formally acknowledge its sin. Zechariah 12:10 speaks of this: “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.” The passage goes on to describe the mourning and the cleansing from sin that follows. It is apparently the divine preparation for the return of their Messiah. In the days of the awful tribulation of Israel, in which their ancient worship is once more prescribed and all natural Jews become the objects of persecution, there will undoubtedly be many more of Israel brought to Christ through the personal work of those previously saved. While many of the Gentiles will also be brought to Christ (Rev 7:9–14), it will be a special time for Jewish evangelism and it will be climaxed by the outpouring of the Spirit of God as a preparation for the return of Christ. The second phase of Israel’s restoration is accomplished thus at the end of the tribulation, while the first phase occurs at its beginning.

The chief significance of Romans 11:25 does not, however, lie in its details. The important fact is that it indicates a termination of the present age of Gentile blessing in the Gospel and the preparation of Israel for a yet future period. Any interpretation of the passage which deals with the terms in their ordinary meaning demands a system of prophecy which allows for a future for Israel. The consummation of Romans 11:25 is described in the verses which follow: the national salvation of Israel, the coming of the Deliverer out of Zion and the fulfillment of God’s covenant with His ancient people. The important consideration involved in this revelation will constitute the eschatological problem to be discussed in the next article.

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. The full quotation is as follows: “Ein jüdisch Herz ist so stock-stein-eisenteufelhart, das mit keiner Weise zu bewegen ist;—es sind junge Teufel zur Hölle verdammt, diese Teufelskinder zu bekehren ist unmöglich, wie etliche solchen Wahn schöpfen aus der Epistel an die Römer.” Charles Hodge quotes Olshausen as using this passage to illustrate the Reformer’s attitude toward the Jews. Cf. Charles Hodge, Epistle to the Romans (1909), pp. 584-85.
2. “Multi accipiunt de populo Judaico, acsi Paulus diceret instaurandum adhuc in eio religionem ut prius; sed ego Israelis nomen ad totum Dei populum extendo, hoc sensu: Quum Gentes ingressae fuerint, simul et Judaei ex defectione se ad fidei obedientiam recipient: atque ita complebitur salus totius Israelis Dei, quem ex utrisque colligi oportet: sic tamen ut priorem locum Judaei obtineant, ceu in familia Dei primogeniti.” Cf. Calvin’s Commentary on Romans, in loc. Quoted by William Kelly, Notes on Epistle to the Romans (1873), pp. 231-32.
3. Epistle to the Romans, p. 584.
4. Word Pictures in the New Testament, IV, 398.
5. Ibid., IV, 397.
6. Op. cit., pp. 586-87.
7. Op. cit., IV, 398.
8. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Fifth Edition, p. 639.
9. The Mystery of Israel’s Blindness, unpublished thesis filed in the Dallas Theological Seminary Library, pp. 69-70. Those desiring a fuller discussion of the subject than is possible here will find this thesis an invaluable contribution. For a history of the subject, see the article by Dr. Herbert E. Kann, Bibliotheca Sacra, October-December, 1937, pp. 442-457.

Eschatological Problems VII: The Fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant

By John F. Walvoord

The importance of the promise of God to David regarding his posterity and his throne has been frequently ignored in treatments of the field of eschatology. Those who deny the inspiration of the Scriptures are at no pains to weigh its significance. Those who are more serious in their attempts to ascertain the exact meaning of Scripture have too often been satisfied with the simple solution that these promises are fulfilled in Christ. It is the thesis of this discussion that the Davidic covenant deserves an important place in determining the purposes of God and that its exegesis confirms the doctrine of a future reign of Christ on earth.

Analysis of the Covenant

David had the godly ambition to build a temple to Jehovah. The incongruity of allowing the ark of God to remain in a temporary tent-like tabernacle while he himself lived in the luxury of a house of cedar seemed to call for the erection of a suitable permanent building to be the center of worship. To Nathan, the prophet, was revealed that God intended David to build something more enduring than any material edifice. David’s “house” was to be his posterity and through them his throne and his kingdom were to continue forever. The main features of the covenant are included in the following passage: “When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 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; but my loving kindness shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever” (2 Sam 7:12–16).

The provisions of the Davidic covenant include, then, the following items: (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) even though his sins justify chastisement. (5) David’s house, throne, and kingdom shall be established forever.

To Solomon, then, was promised a throne which would be established forever. To David was promised a posterity, a throne, and a kingdom established forever. The promise is clear that the throne passed on through Solomon to David’s posterity was never to be abolished. It is not clear whether the posterity of David should be through the line of Solomon. It will be shown later that this fine point in the prophecy was occasioned by the cutting off of the posterity of Solomon as far as the throne is concerned.

What do the major terms of the covenant mean? By David’s “house” it can hardly be doubted that reference is made to David’s posterity, his physical descendants. It is assured that they will never be slain in toto, nor displaced by another family entirely. The line of David will always be the royal line. By the term “throne” it is clear that no reference is made to a material throne, but rather to the dignity and power which was sovereign and supreme in David as king. The right to rule always belonged to David’s seed. By the term “kingdom” there is reference to David’s political kingdom over Israel. This kingdom was spiritual only in the sense that it was given to David by the anointing of God’s prophet. The kingdom was by its nature earthly, political, and limited to Israel. By the expression “for ever,” it is signified that the Davidic authority and Davidic kingdom or rule over Israel shall never be taken from David’s posterity. The right to rule will never be transferred to another family, and its arrangement is designed for eternal perpetuity. Whatever its changing form, temporary interruptions, or chastisements, the line of David will always have the right to rule over Israel and will, in fact, exercise this privilege. This then, in brief, is the covenant of God with David.

The covenant has many confirmations in the Old Testament. Specifically, Psalm 89 speaks repeatedly on this theme. “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant: Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations…. My loving-kindness will I keep for him for evermore; And my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, And his throne as the days of heaven. If his children forsake my law, And walk not in mine ordinances; If they break my statutes, And keep not my commandments; Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, And their iniquity with stripes. But my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, Nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, Nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness: I will not lie unto David: His seed shall endure for ever, And his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as the faithful witness in the sky” (Ps 89:3, 4, 28–37).

The Problem of Fulfillment

Among conservative theologians, the opinion is unanimous that Christ fulfills the Davidic Covenant. The evidence is clear from the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. For anyone accepting the authenticity and inspiration of the Scriptures, the testimony of the angel to Mary is conclusive: “And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:31–33). The promise of David’s throne, David’s kingdom, and all that is involved is transferred by this prophecy to Jesus Christ, “The Son of David” (Matt 1:1). The line that began with David has its consummation and eternal fulfillment in Christ.

The problem of fulfillment does not consist in the question of whether Christ is the one who fulfills the promises, but rather on the issue of how Christ fulfills the covenant and when He fulfills it. Concerning this question, there have been two principal answers: (1) Christ fulfills the promise by His present session at the right hand of the Father in heaven; (2) Christ fulfills the promise by His return and righteous reign on earth during the millennium. Interpreters of Scripture have usually adopted an answer to the problem which fits their larger system of doctrine. Those who deny a millennium or who identify Israel and the church are apt to insist that Christ is fulfilling the covenant by His present session. Those who believe in a literal millennium and a reign of Christ on earth affirm the second answer. In this obvious contradiction between two systems of interpretation, there are certain issues which determine the outcome. These issues may be reduced for our purpose to the following: (1) Does the Davidic covenant require literal fulfillment? (2) Does the partial fulfillment already a matter of history permit a literal fulfillment? (3) Is the interpretation of this covenant in harmony with other covenant purposes of God? (4) What does the New Testament teach regarding the present and future reign of Christ?

Does the Davidic Covenant Require Literal Fulfillment?

If it were not for the difficulty of contradicting certain systems of interpretation of Scripture, it is doubtful whether anyone would have thought of interpreting the Davidic covenant as other than requiring a literal fulfillment. The arguments in favor of literal interpretation are so massive in their construction and so difficult to waive that they are more commonly ignored by those who do not want to believe in literal fulfillment than answered by argument. George N. H. Peters, in his monumental work, The Theocratic Kingdom, in Proposition 52, has listed no less than twenty-one arguments in favor of literal interpretation, not to include collateral material. His important arguments for literal interpretation may be summarized as follows: (1) the solemn character of the covenant which was confirmed by an oath; (2) a spiritual fulfillment would not be becoming to a solemn covenant. (3) Both David and Solomon apparently understood it to be literal (2 Sam 7:18–29; 2 Chron 6:14–16). (4) The language used, which is also used by the prophets, denotes a literal throne and kingdom. (5) The Jews plainly expected a literal fulfillment. (6) The throne and kingdom as a promise and inheritance belong to the humanity of Christ as the seed of David rather than belonging to His deity. (7) There is no ground for identifying David’s throne and the Father’s throne. (8) A symbolical interpretation of the covenant leaves its interpretation to man. (9) The literal fulfillment is requisite to the display of God’s government in the earth, necessary to the restoration and exaltation of the Jewish nation and deliverance of the earth from the curse. (10) Literal fulfillment is necessary to preserve the Divine unity of purpose.

Unless all of these weighty arguments be dismissed as utterly without foundation, it must be clear that there are good and important reasons for adopting a literal interpretation of the covenant promises. If a literal interpretation be adopted, the present session of Christ is not a fulfillment of the covenant, and it must be referred to the future. It is clear that at the present time Christ is not in any literal sense reigning over the kingdom of David. From the content and circumstances surrounding the Davidic covenant, it is evident that a literal fulfillment is anticipated.

Does the Historical Partial Fulfillment Permit a Literal Interpretation?

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. A question may be raised whether history permits a literal fulfillment of the covenant. Does not the fact, viz., of Israel’s captivity, with the downfall of the kingdom of Israel argue against a literal fulfillment? Do not the centuries which have elapsed since the coming of Christ prove that no literal fulfillment is intended? These are pointed questions and one cannot argue about the facts which support them. If we believe that no word of God is broken, it is obvious that an interpretation which is not sustained by historic fulfillment is a wrong interpretation. The usual solution to this problem is that there is both a historical and a spiritual fulfillment. It is historical, in that a literal descendant of David was born—Christ; it is spiritual in that the kingdom perpetuated and the throne are not literally David’s but God’s.

Jamieson gives such a solution to the problem of the fulfillment of the covenant: “This promise, like that made to Abraham, has a twofold aspect,—one points to David’s natural posterity and temporal kingdom, the other to the Messiah and the kingdom of heaven. It respected the former only as types and pledges of the latter. Some, indeed, restrict this promise entirely to the Messiah, and deny that it was applicable to David’s natural descendants at all. The passages which seem to apply any part of it to these, refer, in their opinion, to another promise made unto David, which was of a temporal nature, and altogether distinct from this. But we have no account of any such promise in all the history. The truth is, this promise, like many others in the Old Testament, has a twofold sense—it takes in the type as well as the antitype; so that those who saw it accomplished in what respected David’s temporal house, had a proof that the Lord spoke by the prophet Nathan, and consequently a pledge that He would also in due time fulfill the spiritual part of it also. That it included David’s descendants, who by ordinary generation were to succeed him on the throne of Israel, is evident from David’s application of it to his son Solomon, in whom the temporal part of it had a partial accomplishment (1 Chr. xxii.6–11; xxviii.5–8). The Lord himself also applies it to Solomon, when He appeared in vision (2 Chr. viii.7–18). It contains a threatening against such of David’s children as should commit iniquity, which was verified on his royal posterity who succeeded him on the throne, whom the Lord punished for their transgressions, as the sacred history abundantly shows. It was to fulfill the temporal part of this promise that the Lord continued the house of David so long on the throne of Judah, notwithstanding all their frequent and aggravated rebellions against Him (1 Ki. xi.36; 2 Ki. viii.19; 2 Chr. xxi.7 ); and it was repeatedly appealed to by the Jewish Church when the judgments inflicted upon David’s temporal house and kingdom seemed to make it void. This promise as it represented David’s natural seed was conditional, so that the Lord at length deprived them of the kingdom; but He did not by that deprivation violate or nullify the covenant with His servant; for this was only what He threatened at the commencement of it to do in the event of their committing iniquity (1 Chr. xxviii.9). But how, then, was the promise made good, that David’s seed should sit on his throne forever? The spiritual and eternal part of the promise pointed to the Messiah, who was to come of the seed of David according to the flesh, and to be raised up from the dead to sit for ever on His heavenly throne. The promise as it respected the Messiah was absolute, and in Him had its full accomplishment.”[1]

The difficulty with the interpretation of fulfillment in part by temporal events and in part by spiritual is that it does not actually fulfill the covenant. It is true that Christ is the Son of David, and that this is literal descent, but it is without significance unless He also possesses the throne of His father David. Is it the meaning of the covenant that the kingdom of David and his authority over Israel should be transmuted into a general government of God over the world or over the saints? Is it not rather that the literal fulfillment of the reign over the house of Jacob and the throne of David is specifically singled out by the angel in the announcement of Mary (Luke 1:32–33)? If the transgressions of Israel resulted in the captivity and made impossible a literal fulfillment of all aspects of the covenant, is it not strange that the very elements which it is denied can be fulfilled literally should be reiterated in the New Testament? Is it not rather that God, foreseeing the temptation to lose hope in the promise, calls attention once more to its inviolate character? It must be clear to any candid interpreter that Mary would understand it to mean the fulfillment of the hope of Israel for an earthly and political kingdom. The revelation of the angel must be taken either as a confirmation of the covenant or a deliberate encouragement of a false interpretation of Scripture—which is unthinkable.

In the mind of God, it is evident that there is no contradiction in the literal interpretation of the covenant and the temporary enslavement of the Jewish nation in the captivity and under the dominion of Rome. In what sense, then, can we expect a literal fulfillment?

A clue can be taken in a significant accuracy in the covenant and its subsequent fulfillment. In proclaiming the covenant, the language of the prophet carefully distinguishes between the seed of David, Solomon, and the throne. David is assured that his seed will reign forever. Solomon is assured only that his throne will continue forever. In this fine point is an illustration of God’s intention. In the subsequent history of Israel, Solomon’s line is specifically cut off from the throne at the time of the captivity of Judah (Jer 22:30; 36:30). In the lineage of Christ found in Matthew and Luke, it is clear that Joseph descended through Solomon and the line which is cut off, while Mary descended from another son of David entirely, Nathan—by curious coincidence the same name as the prophet’s who gave the Davidic covenant, though undoubtedly two different individuals. Accordingly, while the legal lineage came to Christ through Joseph, his legal father and a descendant of Solomon and his heirs, the actual seed of David was transmitted through Nathan and Mary. This brings us to an important conclusion: the line which was to fulfill the promise of the eternal throne and eternal kingdom over Israel was preserved by God through a lineage which in fact did not sit on the throne at all, from Nathan down to Christ. It is, then, not necessary for the line to be unbroken as to actual conduct of the kingdom, but it is rather that the lineage, royal prerogative, and right to the throne be preserved and never lost, even in sin, captivity, and dispersion. It is not necessary, then, for continuous political government to be in effect, but it is necessary that the line be not lost.

All agree that the line is not lost. It came to its fulfillment in Christ. In the destruction of Jerusalem, the genealogies were destroyed and it would be impossible for Jews of to-day to trace their lineage back to the line of David. Accordingly, in the wisdom of God, the proof that Christ was of the line of David has been preserved, but at the same time the evidence has been destroyed for any future contenders for the honors. The Jews of to-day must admit that they could not positively identify the lineage of a Messiah if he did appear now. Only Christ has the evidence necessary, and the line is preserved with Him.

The partial fulfillment of the covenant, in that Christ is identified as the one through whom it will be fulfilled, instead of indicating a spiritual fulfillment rather lays the foundation for a literal fulfillment. The purpose of God is seen to be preserved in maintaining the line of David which has the right to rule. The postponement or delay in assuming political power in no wise invalidates the promise. The partial fulfillment in no wise hinders the literal fulfillment of all the covenant.

Is Literal Fulfillment in Harmony with Other Covenants?

The interpretation of the Davidic Covenant inevitably is colored by the construction placed on other covenants of Scripture. It is not within the province of this discussion to investigate all these covenants. If the premillennial viewpoint of Scripture be sustained by other arguments, however, it is clear that the Davidic covenant fits perfectly into the picture. It is the covenant ground for the earthly rule of Christ. All the promises regarding the nation Israel, the possession of the land, the millennial blessings in general, and the return of Christ to reign are in perfect harmony with a literal fulfillment of the covenant. The purpose of God in David is fulfilled in the reign of Christ. This has two aspects: His millennial reign and the continued rule of God in the new earth for eternity. The premillennial viewpoint provides a fully adequate literal fulfillment of the covenant.

Wilkinson has written a forceful summary of this point: “Nevertheless, facts are stubborn things. It is a fact that God has declared that Israel is not to cease from being a nation before Him for ever. It is a fact that the Jewish nation, still in unbelief, survivor of all others, alone retains its national identity…. It is a fact that the promise of a land (the territorial limits of which were defined) to the posterity of Abraham, as also the promise of a son of David’s own line to occupy David’s throne for ever, were unconditional promises, ratified by covenant and oath. It is a fact that the posterity of Abraham has never yet fully possessed and enjoyed the whole of the land so granted and that no son of David occupies David’s throne, nor can do so enduringly till Jesus returns to earth…. The O.T. promises are all as certain of fulfillment in their O.T. sense and meaning and purpose to Israel, as are the N.T. promises certain of fulfillment to the Church.”[2]

The literal fulfillment of the Davidic covenant is, then, in harmony with the larger covenant purpose of God. In fact, its plain intent and the nature of the promises are another confirmation of the premillennial interpretation of Scripture. It provides an interpretation fully honoring to God and His Word.

The New Testament Teaching on the Reign of Christ

Attention has already been called to the New Testament confirmation of the purpose of God to fulfill the Davidic Covenant literally (Luke 1:32, 33). The New Testament has in all fifty-nine references to David. It also has many references to the present session of Christ. A search of the New Testament reveals that there is not one reference connecting the present session of Christ with the Davidic throne. While this argument is, of course, not conclusive, it is almost incredible that in so many references to David and in so frequent reference to the present session of Christ on the Father’s throne there should be not one reference connecting the two in any authoritative way. The New Testament is totally lacking in positive teaching that the throne of the Father in Heaven is to be identified with the Davidic throne. The inference is plain that Christ is seated on the Father’s throne, but that this is not at all the same as being seated on the throne of David.

About the only reference which can be construed as having any connection with the identification of David’s kingdom reign and the present session of Christ is that found in Acts 15:14–17. After Paul’s testimony of wonders wrought among the Gentiles, James addressed the council in these words: “Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up: That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called” (Acts 15:14–17).

The problem of this passage resolves into these questions: (1) What is meant by the “tabernacle of David”? (2) When is the “tabernacle of David” to be rebuilt? The first question is settled by an examination of its source, Amos 9:11, and its context. The preceding chapters and the first part of chapter nine deal with God’s judgment upon Israel. It is summed in the two verses which immediately precede the quotation: “For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all the nations, like as grain is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least kernel fall upon the earth. All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, who say, The evil shall not overtake nor meet us” (Amos 9:9, 10).

Immediately following this passage of judgment is the promise of blessing after the judgment, of which the verse quoted in Acts fifteen is the first: “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 its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations that are called by my name, saith Jehovah that doeth this. Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, 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. And I will bring back the captivity of my people 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. And I will plant them upon their own land, and they shall no more be plucked up out of their land which I have given them, saith Jehovah thy God” (Amos 9:11–15).

The context of the passage deals, then, with Israel’s judgment. After this period, which is the period of Gentile opportunity, God will raise up the tabernacle of David, give Israel supremacy over Edom and the nations, bless their crops, regather Israel, restore their cities, and assure them that they will never again be dispersed. The entire passage confirms that the “tabernacle of David” is an expression referring to the whole nation of Israel, and that in contrast to the Gentile nations. By no possible stretch of the plain meaning of this passage can the “tabernacle of David” be made to be the equivalent of the New Testament church. The prophecy concerns the rebuilding of that which was fallen down. The “ruins” are to be rebuilt “as in the days of old.” The nature of the blessings are earthly, territorial, and national, and have nothing to do with a spiritual church to which none of these blessings have been promised.

What then is the meaning of the quotation of James? What relation does it have to the problem faced by the council at Jerusalem? The question considered by the council was one of Gentile participation in the church. It apparently was difficult for the apostles to adjust themselves to equality with Gentiles in the Gospel. The evident blessing of God upon the Gentiles, their salvation, and spiritual gifts were indisputable evidence that a change in approach to the Gentiles was necessary. They must face the fact that both Jew and Gentile were saved by grace in exactly the same manner. How was this to be reconciled with the promises of God to Israel? It is this which James answers.

He states, in effect, that it was God’s purpose to bless the Gentiles as well as Israel, but in their order. God was to visit the Gentiles first, “to take out of them a people for his name.” James goes on to say that this is entirely in keeping with the prophets, for they had stated that the period of Jewish blessing and triumph should be after the Gentile period: “After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen.” Instead of identifying the period of Gentile conversion with the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David, it is carefully distinguished by the first (Gentile blessing), and after this, referring to Israel’s coming glory. The passage instead of identifying God’s purpose for the church and for the nation, Israel, established a specific time order. Israel’s blessing will not come until “I return,” apparently reference to the second coming of Christ. That it could not refer either to the Incarnation or to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost is evident in that neither are “return’s.” The passage under consideration constitutes, then, an important guide in determining the purpose of God. God will first conclude His work for the Gentiles in the period of Israel’s dispersion; then He will return to bring in the promised blessings for Israel. It is needless to say that this confirms the interpretation that Christ is not now on the throne of David bringing blessing to Israel as the prophets predicted, but He is rather on His Father’s throne waiting for the coming earthly kingdom and interceding for His own who form the church.

An examination of the evidence has brought us to the conclusion that the Davidic covenant demands a literal fulfillment, that the partial fulfillment in no wise hinders a complete future fulfillment and in fact requires it, that only a literal fulfillment is in harmony with the other covenant purposes of God, and that the New Testament is not only silent on any identification of the present position of Christ with the Davidic throne but specifically separates the present period of Gentile blessing from Israel’s future glory.

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown, A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testament, unabridged edition, (Glasgow: William Collins, Sons, & Company, 1868), II, 295.
2. Samuel Hinds Wilkinson, The Israel Promises and Their Fulfilment (London: John Bale, Sons and Danielsson, Ltd., 1936), pp. 56-57.