CHARACTER OF ISRAEL'S FUTURE IN LIGHT OF THE ABRAHAMIC AND MOSAIC COVENANTS, THE

Trinity Journal, Spring 2004 by Vasholz, Robert

I. INTRODUCTION

The long history among evangelicals on the issue of the Bible's position on the future of ethnic Israel hardly needs to be documented.1 The number of current works on the subject shows that the issue is still unresolved. So much has been said about it that one must pause before taking up the issue again for fear of being repetitious. It is with some trepidation, therefore, that I dare to enter the fray. I do so because I sincerely believe that with regard to OT prophecies pertaining to ethnic Israel's future, the real crux of the issue, there can be a general consensus. The issue centers on how one views OT promises with respect to the future of OT Israel. Should we expect from these promises a word-for-word correspondence (i.e., a literal fulfillment) or should we view them typologically? And are these viewpoints necessarily mutually exclusive? If the Bible does affirm a future role for Israel, does it then follow that ethnic Israel must rule over the nations from her geographic homeland either by the physical presence of her Messiah or via his elect in a dispensation other than the present one? Or do these promises find their realization solely and in a far greater sense in Christ only? As we shall see, it is this writer's opinion that a resolution of this issue can be found through an understanding of a major and fundamental difference between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.

II. A FUTURE FOR ISRAEL?

A. New Testament Response: The Promise in Rom 11:25-26

This paper has no meaning unless the Scriptures indicate that ethnic or unbelieving Israel is promised a future. Do the Scriptures in fact teach that there is a future role for ethnic Israel? The crux interpretum where the topic is specifically addressed is Rom 11:25-26. As Scott Hafemann has noted, "Romans 11:25-26 is the only explicit treatment of the question for the future of Israel."2 Of particular significance here is the clause "all Israel will be saved" (NASB), and the issue is whether or not this clause is to be taken at face value. Does "all Israel" in Rom 11:25-26 refer to the elect from Israel or to unbelieving Israel? If it is not unbelieving, i.e., ethnic Israel, obviously it has little relevance to Israel's future as a nation. Holding that "Israel" means only the "elect from Israel" may seem like a stretch at first, but the notion is not without support.

Earlier in Romans 11, Paul remarked that a remnant from Israel was being saved along with the Gentiles. His conversion was an example of this: "I say then, God has not rejected his people, has he? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew" (Rom 11:1-2a). he follows by citing the OT to demonstrate that God had always preserved a remnant, i.e., the elect, from Israel just as he was doing presently: "In the same way, then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice" (Rom 11:5). The word translated by the phrase "in the same way," houtos, is the same word that precedes "all will be saved" in 11:26. This word has been commonly translated "then" in many versions. Ben Merkle was not the first to object to such a translation, asserting that the word has no temporal meaning: "It must be noted, however, that houtos never has a temporal significance."3 In Rom 11:26 the word should be translated in the same way that it is in 11:5, yielding "in the same way, all Israel will be saved." Thus, as God has always maintained a remnant from Israel in the past and present, as his argument goes, in the same manner he will continue to do so until, what Paul calls, "the fullness of the Gentiles" has come in, according to Rom 11:25. The fullness of the Gentiles is tied to the salvation of Israel (Rom 11:12). This is what the apostle affirms.

This view seems to warrant some support in Scripture, yet to adopt the notion that Israel refers to the elect of Israel or even all Christians and not unbelieving Israel raises more difficulties. Eight out of the nine times "Israel" is specifically mentioned in Romans 911 prior to 11:26, "Israel" refers to unbelieving Israel. Indeed, in the verse immediately preceding 11:26, "Israel" must refer to unbelieving Israel: ". . .a partial hardening has happened to Israel" (Rom 11:25). The citations that follow from Isa 59:20-21 and Jer 31:34 indicate with finality that unbelieving Israel is clearly what is meant here. The one place where "Israel" does not refer to an unbelieving people but to the elect of Israel is in Rom 9:6. To paraphrase: "For they are not all of [believing] Israel who are descended from [ethnic] Israel." Here it is plain that an elect from Israel is meant. And that is Paul's point: Because the apostle meant by the use of the name Israel something other than unbelieving or ethnic Israel, he makes it explicit. (It is like the use of the word "day" in the OT. When "day" means something other than a normal day, the context makes it clear; cf. Gen 2:4.) In Romans 9-11 every time Israel is used in juxtaposition to Gentiles, it always means unbelieving Israel. Cranfield notes that "it is not feasible to understand Israel in v. 26 in a different sense from that which it has in v. 25, especially in view of the sustained contrast between Israel and the Gentiles throughout vv. 11-23."4 The apostle must have ethnic Israel in mind.