Romans 9:4 and Israel-Only Covenants?
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 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.
However, although Israel beheld God’s glory in the wilderness (Exod. 16:7, 10) 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 to glory” (2 Cor. 3:18), and we shall see God in His glory (cf. Jn. 17:24). This means the glory does not just pertain to Israel. Moreover, of course, historically only some Israelites saw God’s glory. One day, all the earth will behold God’s glory (Num. 14:21).
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 of 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” not “covenant.” There is just one covenant left, which is the New covenant, and the New covenant grows out of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Gal. 4:21-31).
Like it or not, the NT indicates that the Church does participate in some (at least two) of God’s covenants. Hence, Romans 9:4 cannot mean that covenants only pertain to Israel.
The New Covenant is a Legal Instrument Between God and Israel, Not the Church
This is strongly argued for by Roy Beacham, DUNC, 108-113, and is commonly found in dispensational works. The first thing I want to remind readers of is that the Bible never says the New covenant is for Israel only. I realize a negation is not a proof, but if further revelation includes the Gentiles the negation is sound. Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is not the be-all-and-end-all of New covenant doctrine, is not the New covenant itself, but a prophecy of a coming New covenant. I would point out, with say Luke 22:20 and Ephesians 2:20 in mind, that added revelation, at the time of the institution of the Lord’s Supper and the Pauline literature, requires that we include Gentiles in the New covenant.
Having said that, let me address what I strongly believe is the error of linking divine covenants with legal instruments. Those who do this often confound covenants with contracts. But covenants are not contracts. You cannot place the Almighty under a legal contract. To do so would be to put Law above God, in which case God would not be the Source of that Law, which contradicts orthodoxy. The creature is in no position to bring God into court.
The main problem here is trying to make biblical covenants match ancient treaties; a move which many scholars have warned against. As John H. Walton says, “the extant literature of the ancient Near East offers no direct parallels to the covenant of the Old Testament.” – Covenant, 14.
It is Fallacious to Claim Participation in New Covenant Blood Equals Participation in the New Covenant
Again, we see this in Beacham, DUNC, 128-129, 137. This is a major plank of his argument for an Israel-only New covenant. It allows him to read 1 Corinthians 11:25 and 2 Corinthians 3:6 without ascribing part or whole participation of the Church in the New covenant. The assertion is that the blood is not the covenant.
We readily concede that the blood is not the covenant. The covenant is the verbal pact pledged against the honor of the covenant maker. But the blood symbolizes the covenant. Thus,
And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words.” – Exodus 24:8 (My italics).
In making the covenant with Israel at Sinai God equated the blood with the covenant. The blood ratified the covenant. The author of Hebrews comments,
Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.- Hebrews 9:18.
Similarly, the blood of the New covenant consecrated (egkainizō) the New covenant to its recipients. The sacrifice of Christ, the blood of which, we must recall, was offered in Heaven (Heb. 8:1-5), was a New covenant sacrifice. This is the theme of Hebrews 8 – 10.
Let us view it from another angle. Let us compare Colossians 1:20, written to the Church, with Hebrews 13:20:
and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. – Colossians 1:20 (My italics).
Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant… – Hebrews 13:20 (My italics).
Peace between God and sinners is brought about by Christ’s blood, which Hebrews calls “the blood of the everlasting covenant,” which in the context of Hebrews is the New covenant which has been inaugurated (Heb. 9:18).
But I think we have to return to Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8 and recognize that Christ is the embodiment of the New covenant. As such the connection between the blood of the New covenant (Christ’s blood) and the New covenant itself is so close as to equate the two. In my opinion this objection creates a distinction without a difference. It also creates confusion when reading Paul. Why would the apostle write 1 Corinthians 11:25 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 – 4:6 is he did not believe the New covenant was what He was ministering to the Church?
