A Superficial Case
Many dispensationalists cite Romans 9:4 as proof that the covenants are only given to Israel, with the Church having no part in them. The verse reads:
who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises…
I think there is a superficial case for using this verse to fend off those, like the present writer, who believe that the Church is party to the New covenant. Reading the list of things given to Israel one could point to the fact that Israel was adopted by Yahweh by being His chosen segulla or special treasure (Exod. 19:5). It is also true that the Law was given solely to Israel in the Mosaic covenant, and, if by “the service of God” the apostle has in mind the Levitical order, we can readily assign that to Israel through the Mosaic and Priestly covenants. Additionally, the main accent of the Davidic covenant has to do with the Davidic Dynasty ruling from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:1-3).
However…
although Israel beheld God’s glory in the wilderness (Exod. 24:16-17) we cannot say that they are the sole witnesses of that glory. True, the Church does not presently witness the glory, but we are “being changed from glory” (2 Cor. 3:18), and we shall see God in His glory (1 Cor. 13:12; Jude 24). This means the glory does not just pertain to Israel. Moreover, of course, historically only some Israelites saw God’s glory. Many more did not.
When we come to the covenants we can affirm the fact that the first two parts of the Abrahamic covenant are for Israel. We can also affirm that the Mosaic, Priestly, and Davidic covenants are for Israel. But the third part of the covenant with Abraham, which states that ““In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 22:18a), very clearly includes non-Israelites. And when we turn to Galatians the full meaning and extent of this provision becomes clear:
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”, that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith…For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus….And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. – Galatians 3:13-14, 26, 29.
Notice the language:
that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles…
you are all sons through faith…
you are Abraham’s seed…
heirs according to the promise
This is not the language of “trickle-down” blessing. An heir is a full party! The “blessing of Abraham” I take to be the third aspect of the Abrahamic covenant; the blessing on the nations. Yes, this comes via Israel through Christ, but it is a covenant blessing and a covenant appropriation. The covenant is not restricted to Israel according to Paul’s theology. And we can see this all the more in Ephesians 2:
that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. – Ephesians 2:12-13.
Now we must ask which “covenants of promise” Paul is referring to. Let’s cross off the Mosaic, the Priestly, and the Davidic, since they are all plainly Israel-centric. What does that leave us with? Well, the Noahic covenant could be included, but it does not appear to be a covenant of promise in the way Paul employs that term. In his letters, Paul tends to use the word “promise” to refer to prophecy, and the Noahic covenant is not a prophetic covenant, other than it promotes an implication of a future harmony in nature. This leaves us with the Abrahamic and the New covenants. The Church’s relation to the Abrahamic covenant has been addressed above. But Paul says “covenants” (plural), not “covenant.” There is just one covenant left to fit the bill, and that is the New covenant, and the New covenant grows out of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Gal. 4:21-31).
Even if the Church was only connected to the Abrahamic covenant, that would be enough to refute the assertion that the OT covenants are for Israel alone, which the superficial use of Romans 9:4 is driving at. but Ephesians 2:12 says “covenants” so we have to ask what the other covenants is. This is where I believe many dispensationalists need to reconsider the Church’s relation to the New covenant.
