Various New Testament passages illustrate how the church fulfills prophecies regarding Israel. Citing Amos 9:11-12, James says God is rebuilding the tabernacle of David through the calling of the Gentiles (Acts 15:15ff).
In Romans 15:8-12, Paul notes that the conversion of the Gentiles is a “confirming of the promises to the fathers.” And at least one of the verses brought forth as proof speaks of Christ’s Messianic kingdom rule (Rom. 15:12).
In Acts, the preaching of the gospel touches on the very hope of the Jews, which was made to the fathers (Acts 26:6-7). The promises did not set forth a literal, political kingdom, but a spiritual, gospel kingdom. Psalm 2 begins its fulfillment in the resurrection of Christ — not at the Second Advent (Acts 13:32-33). The prophecy was fulfilled.
Another illustration in addition to those given above is Paul’s use of Hosea 1:9-10 and 2:23. In Romans 9:24-26 Paul interprets these very strong Jewish-contexted verses as referring to Gentile salvation in the New Covenant phase of the church.
In Luke 24:44-47 the Lord taught that it was necessary for Him to die in order to fulfill Scripture in bringing salvation to the Gentiles: “All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, con- cerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations.”
A fundamental message of the New Testament is that the distinction between Jew and Gentile has forever been done away with. Paul points out this fact in Ephesians 2:11-16: “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh . . . at that time ye 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 ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.”
Thus, “there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for ye are all one in Christ” (Gal. 3:28) and “there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision” (Col. 3:11). This will never cease or be reversed!
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Hello Jasen.
You said:
“A fundamental message of the New Testament is that the distinction between Jew and Gentile has forever been done away with.”
In light of this statement how would you interpret and synchronize Romans 11:25-27:
“For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, lest you should be wise within yourselves; that blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the nations has comes in. And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written, “There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is My covenant with them, when I have taken away their sins.” “?
Can you also comment your understanding of the last 3 verses?
Thanks.
Yuri
Paul is talking about the Remnant in 11:1-10. He says that at the present time, there is still a Remnant of Israel. He is one such, he says.
The Remnant and its provoking work will have the effect of making the Jews “jealous.” The fact that gospel has gone to the Gentiles, and they are inheriting the riches of the Old Testament promises, is not the last word. Paul reveals that the Remnant’s work will bear fruit among the Israelites, so that Israel will experience a “fullness” (v. 12). When this “fullness” happens, it will be “life from the dead” — resurrection (v. 15). We shall return to this in a moment.
Having established that Israel has a future, Paul exhorts the Gentile believers not to lord it over Israel. Just as the Jews are not to dominate the Gentiles in the Church, so neither are the Gentiles to despise the Jews. God had grafted the Gentiles onto the patriarchal stock of the Olive Tree, but soon He will graft Israel back in, making One New Tree (11:16-24).
Verses 25-26 say that the partial hardening of apostate Israel will last until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, and then all Israel (not just the Remnant) will be saved.
So, the fullness of the Gentiles comes first, and then the fullness of Israel. What does this mean? In context, I believe that the fullness of the Gentiles has to mean the transfer of the riches to them, as mentioned in verse 12. This transfer of treasures went on during the Interim, and it is seen particularly in the completion of the canon of the New Testament, because the New Testament interprets and applies (transfers) the Old Testament to the New Covenant situation. The fullness does not refer only to words, however, but also to the completion of the formation of the New Covenant Church, which was a large part of Paul’s own (Israel-provoking) mission.
Just as Old Covenant Israel was to minister to the Gentiles by preaching and obeying God’s law, so the New Covenant Gentile Church was to minister to Israel by preaching the New Testament and living righteously. Just as the Old Covenant Gentiles would admire Israel if she were faithful (Dt. 4:6-9), so it was necessary for the New Covenant Gentiles to be faithful in order to draw Israel into the Church. (This role reversal may be part of the reason why Jerusalem is called Babel in the book of Revelation.)
Why did this fullness of the Gentiles have to happen first? Because only then would the fullness of provocation be possible. The presence of the New Covenant Church and its true interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures had the effect of gradually stripping away the veil that lay over Moses’ words (2 Cor. 3), which was but the outworking of the rending of the Temple Veil that happened at Christ’s death. When the Church was fully formed, and the Scriptures completed, then the veil was fully removed, and the provocation to jealousy reached its most intense development.
The purpose of the provocation was the salvation of Israel. True, for many, the provocation resulted in wrath, but for others it would result in repentance. Paul says that in the future (their future, not ours), this provoking work would bear fruit. Not just a Remnant but “all Israel” would turn to the Lord. Paul does not describe how this would come about in detail, but we can see from the Book of Revelation what actually happened.
So Romans 11:25-26 is a prophecy about the end of the Old Covenant with all of true Israel being saved. That happened with the completion of the New Testament and the Fall of Jerusalem. Therefore, Romans 11:25-26 was future to Paul but is past to us.
Thanks Jason.
My specific problem with this verse is – “until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in”? Are you saying that the fullness of all the Gentiles has come in? Did all the Gentiles gotten saved? Because as far as I read this text it seems that “fullness of the Gentiles” speaks about Gentile Salvation, and if so, then “the fulness” has not happened yet but is in the future, and so Israels (Jewish people) have not been ‘all saved’ yet. Would you agree?
Thanks.
Yuri
I understand your “specific problem” and it is a common problem for many concerning this text. I too had this problem once because my original hermeneutic was historical premillennial and even dispensational. Eventually I corrected my hermeneutic to that which is the hermeneutic of historic orthodox Christianity and is called these day “Covenant Theology.”
And after careful exegesis I discovered that the “fulness of the Gentiles” was not a reference to “Gentile Salvation.” Rather it is a reference to the inclusion of the Gentiles into the covenants of God. In other words, this is a reference to the New Covenant! The New Covenant era of the church technically began when the Messiah came (Incarnation), it was ratified with the Cross, and was fully in operation once the Old Covenant was effectively removed by the events of 70 A.D. Between the Cross and 70 A.D. there was a transition that the church went through as the Old Covenant was passing away and the New Covenant was becoming the “new world order” of the church.
The writer of Hebrews spoke of this transition saying, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Hebrews 8:13 ESV) Notice that the Old Covenant didn’t disappear immediately but it incrementally became “obsolete and passed away.” If you remember, even after the Resurrection many of God’s people still worshipped at the Temple according to the order of the Old Covenant. Acts 6:7 records how multitudes of priests were being saved, and as you read Acts and the Epistles you can see the church transitioning from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant era of church history.
Of course, one of the most important aspects of the New Covenant was the uniting together of all of God’s children both Jew and Gentile. This is explained in great detail in the Book of Galatians as Paul explains that the true sons of Abraham (whether ethnic Jew or not) are those who have faith alone in Christ alone (see Galatians 3:29). Also Paul explains this unity of God’s elect in Ephesians. Notice the discussion of unification of God’s elect in chapter 2 of Ephesians and the clear statement of Ephesians 3:6.
Now realize: the same topic is being discussed in Romans! The church in Rome was divided along religious/ethnic lines between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles. This division greatly disturbed Paul because he knew how important the church in Rome was to the evangelization of Europe. He so wanted to go to Rome and explain the New Covenant realities to them (see Romans 1:8-15). Paul wanted Jewish Christians in Rome to understand that the Gentiles were coming into the church as part of the promises of the New Covenant and should be treated as covenant-heirs of God’s Kingdom. Paul uses the first eleven chapters to explain these New Covenant truths to the Jewish Christians — in effect, Paul was delivering to us all the greatest treatise of the Gospel ever written! By Romans 11 his explanations were coming to an apex as he was explaining how the Gentile Christians were being FULLY grafted into the covenants of God as God had always promised.
It is important to keeping reading the text in Romans 11, past verses 25 and 26. If you carefully read verses 28-32 you will see that Paul uses present tense verbs to describe that what he was talking about prior was being fulfilled RIGHT THEN even as he wrote the letter. So the Gentiles were coming in and Israel was repenting and the New Covenant was about to be in full operation as one unified Body of Christ. And in the first verse of chapter 12 Paul begins to draw practical applications based on these present realities!
In summary, by 70 A.D. the church had fully united no longer dividing between Jews and Gentiles — or using Paul’s words, the fullness of the Gentiles had come. Therefore, Romans 11:25-26 was a present/future issue for Paul and the recipients of his letter, but it is a past event for us. The New Covenant is in FULL operation. May we now live Romans 12-16 and disciple the nations!
Jason, I am Reformed and Preterist as well. However this passage out of Romans 11:25-26 does not use the language you use to mean that it is a reference to the Gentiles being included into the Covenants or to the New Covenant. But the language it uses is direct from the same chapter few verses earlier. Look at this verse:
“Rom 11:7 What then? that which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were HARDENED:”
- so, when we read few verses down and the similar word is mentioned in Rom.11:25, logical thing to do is to assume that the writer speaks of the same thing lest the reader be confused, as it is mentioned in v.7 ‘BLINDED’ G4556, and in v.25 ‘BLINDNESS’ G4557. Therefore as far as I see Rom.11:25-26 speaks of Salvation for the Jewish nation in General terms. If you read verses 27 to 29 – Paul writes that though they are enemies concerning the Gospel, however concerning election they are beloved because of their forefathers, specifically Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – in spite of being enemies of the Gospel. And verse 29 seals the thought that Jews as a Nation in General terms have place in the future for us and them concerning their Salvation by saying that gifts and callings of God are irrevocable and without excuse or repentance.
I believe R.C.Sproul is of the same opinion as Preterist.
Yuri,
I am afraid there may be some miscommunication between us. So I want to pause in our discussion and make sure there is none. In doing so let me repeat myself with fewer words and then you can tell me exactly what you are disagreeing with me about.
I have contended that Romans 11:25-26 speaks of the salvation of the Jews (ethnic Jews, national Jews). I then said that church history and biblical texts and historical orthodox preterism teaches that all of the elect Jews of the Old Covenant were in fact saved by the end of the Old Covenant just like God had promised. The end of the Old Covenant was simultaneous with the “fullness of the Gentiles” being grafted into the Olive Tree of Redemption and thereby fully instituting the New Covenant.
This explanation is really in my opinion the only consistent explanation of Romans 11:25-26.
For example, if you believe that “the fulness of the Gentiles” is a reference to the end of the New Covenant then you will have to redefined the nature of the New Covenant in a way that is inconsistent with historical orthodoxy – because you would be saying that the New Covenant is not the last and eternal covenant but a covenant that is only for Gentiles and when it is completed then the Old Covenant for the Jews would be revived.
Which means that you would believe that the Biblical nation of Israel is still in existence today, that the Biblical Jews are still in existence today though unbelieving, and that the Biblical nation of Israel and Biblical Jews will one day turn to Christ as part of some left over un-finished-manifestation of the Old Covenant.
Yuri, is this what you are saying? Why or why not.
By the way, I spoke personally to R. C. Sproul about this passage several years ago in Orange County, CA at a Ligonier Conference. I asked him about his indecisiveness and inconsistencies in his book on the End Times. Dr. Sproul honestly and humbly admitted that he is uncertain about his own opinion on this text. In short, his interpretation of Romans 11 isn’t consistent with the rest of his theology.
Hi Jason.
I would definitely say that the New Covenant is the Last and Eternal and there is no ‘resurrection’ of the ‘old shadows’ as Dispensationalists would teach. However, what Romans 11 teaches is that before the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus there will be a revival among the Jewish population which will bring most of them to Christ Our Lord and Saviour. I do not see anything in this to be unorthodox or inconsistent with the Scriptures. Rom.11:1-6 speaks of the elect, the remnant people of Israel according to Grace of God. Verses 7-11 speaks of the rest of Jews that they were hardened. Starting in verse 12 speaks of the rest of unbelieving Jews coming to Christ in their fullness. This is very important verse, Paul writes here in the form of a question by which he provides an answer at the same time -
“But if their slipping away is the riches of the world, and their default is the riches of the nations, how much more their fullness?”
- Jewish ‘slipping away’ and ‘their default’ which is unbelieve is the ‘riches’ of the Gentiles – the last part of verse 12 answers the question by making a question to make the reader think of this things and the answer is ‘how much more their (Jewish) fullness’. Here Paul uses the word ‘fullness’ concerning the rest of the Jews ending up partakers of the New Covenant. And if the ‘riches’ of the Gentiles speak of Salvation, then so is the ‘fullness’ of the Jews must also mean the same, other-ways anyone else can bring their own explanation and the text becomes confusing. This is where consistency in Paul’s writing becomes obvious for he uses the same word ‘fullness’ concerning the Gentiles in verse 25 the second part of it -
“until the fullness of the nations has comes in”
- where one who reads his letter would have no problem in assuming that Paul speaks of the Salvation of the Gentiles. Both Salvations (trust in Christ) which is ‘one’ for the Jews and the Gentiles have not completely came to pass yet.
v.25 “For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, lest you should be wise within yourselves; that blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the nations has comes in.”
- ‘blindness’ of v.25 is the ‘hardening’ of verse 7 – because it speaks of the same people. We do know that in majority Jews are still hardened and blind today. Therefore logical assumption is that there will be time when revival will sweep among the Jewish people and majority of them will be saved as in their ‘fullness’ which will happen when the ‘fullness’ of the Gentiles ‘has come in’. This will be the conclusion for our waiting for the Lord to come, for we know that when all the elect among the Jews and Gentiles are saved that is when the Lord will come as 2 Peter 3:9 tells us.
I know that in light of the New Covenant this may seem inconsistent, however the Scripture itself tells us that Paul calls it a ‘mystery’ that we should not be ignorant of in verse 25 – ‘lest you should be wise within yourselves’
This is how I believe that the text we are talking about sound the most consistent. And this is why I would disagree with you that ‘fundamentally’ we as Gentiles are the same with the Jews, the Jews are different from us because of their fore-fathers according to the flesh. We as Gentiles were grafted into the cultivated olive tree, however the Jews were already a part of it because of the fore-fathers.
It also may be that I misunderstand your sentence and what you meant by saying “fundamentally”, then in that case we may agree.
Yuri,
First of all I wish to thank you for having this discussion with me. I enjoy it.
In my opinion, there are several major flaws in your exegesis as you have explained it.
(1) You said in your comment that Romans 11 teaches is that before the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus there will be a revival among the Jewish population which will bring most of them to Christ. But it does not. You are reading that into the text.
(2) You have ignored the points I have made and refuse to refute them. You are only repeating your presuppositions.
(3) You are denying the clear teachings of Paul that circumcision and uncircumcision are meaningless in the New Covenant.
(4) You ignore that Paul did not say “the majority of Israel will be saved” but he said “all of Israel will be saved.” The historical, orthodox preterist view explains that “all Israel” was saved by 70 AD because “Israel” in this text is a reference to ethnic Jews who are in the elect and were saved in the first Century.
(5) You read into the phrase “fullness of the Gentiles” your own presupposition and ignore the fact that Paul’s audience would have understood this in covenantal terms.
(6) You have improperly interpreted 2 Peter 3:9 to be a reference to the Second Advent of Christ when the context clearly shows that Peter is referring to the end of the Old Covenant dominion of the world and the fullness of the New Covenant era of the world. See this post.
Yuri, I don’t mind continuing the discussion, but I am asking you, respectfully, to reply to my arguments and points. I already understand your interpretation of Romans 11 – its not in question. The question is can you biblically and theologically refute my interpretation. For my interpretation I believe is more biblically, theologically, exegetically, grammatically, and historically consistent and accurate. If not, I would not hold this position.
God bless you, brother.
Jason,
Quote:
“I then said that church history and biblical texts and historical orthodox preterism teaches that all of the elect Jews of the Old Covenant were in fact saved by the end of the Old Covenant just like God had promised.”
Answer:
This is obvious, all the elect Jews were saved by the end of Old Covenant. I agree.
Q.:
The end of the Old Covenant was simultaneous with the “fullness of the Gentiles” being grafted into the Olive Tree of Redemption and thereby fully instituting the New Covenant.
A.:
Here I find a problem. Where does it say that “The end of the Old Covenant was simultaneous with the “FULLNESS of the Gentiles”? Where did it say ‘fullness’? Because in mine understanding ‘fullness of the Gentiles’ can only mean ‘all’ of the elect Gentiles. What does it mean in your understanding?
Let’s start with this and after I will answer your 6 points.
Yuri, thanks having this discussion this way. I do think it will be easier.
Now concerning the word “fullness”, you need to consider that the word is mentioned first in verse 12 and that is where we find its meaning.
(The following is a quote from Dr. James B. Jordan, The Future of Israel Re-examined. I agree with Dr. Jordan)
Paul refers to the Remnant in Israel, including himself, and even quotes Elijah. Paul explains how the Remnant will have an effect on making the Jews “jealous” which will bring about a “fullness.” The “fullness” of verse 12 is defined as a resurrection, “life from the dead” in verse 15.
Verses 25-26 say that the partial hardening of apostate Israel will last until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, and then all Israel (not just the Remnant) will be saved.
So, the fullness of the Gentiles comes first, and then the fullness of Israel. What does this mean? In context, I believe that the fullness of the Gentiles has to mean the transfer of the riches to them, as mentioned in verse 12. This transfer of treasures went on during the Interim, and it is seen particularly in the completion of the canon of the New Testament, because the New Testament interprets and applies (transfers) the Old Testament to the New Covenant situation. The fullness does not refer only to words, however, but also to the completion of the formation of the New Covenant Church, which was a large part of Paul’s own (Israel-provoking) mission. Just as Old Covenant Israel was to minister to the Gentiles by preaching and obeying God’s law, so the New Covenant Gentile Church was to minister to Israel by preaching the New Testament and living righteously. Just as the Old Covenant Gentiles would admire Israel if she were faithful (Dt. 4:6-9), so it was necessary for the New Covenant Gentiles to be faithful in order to draw Israel into the Church. (This role reversal may be part of the reason why Jerusalem is called Babel in the book of Revelation.)
Why did this fullness of the Gentiles have to happen first? Because only then would the fullness of provocation be possible. The presence of the New Covenant Church and its true interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures had the effect of gradually stripping away the veil that lay over Moses’ words (2 Cor. 3), which was but the outworking of the rending of the Temple Veil that happened at Christ’s death. When the Church was fully formed, and the Scriptures completed, then the veil was fully removed, and the provocation to jealousy reached its most intense development.
The purpose of the provocation was the salvation of Israel. True, for many, the provocation resulted in wrath, but for others it would result in repentance. Paul says that in the future (their future, not ours), this provoking work would bear fruit. Not just a Remnant but “all Israel” would turn to the Lord. At this point, Jew and Gentile would finally be One New Man in Christ, and this would be the political resurrection of the world that removed the bi-polarity of Babel and Israel.
Paul does not describe how this would come about in detail, but we can see from the Book of Revelation what actually happened. A full discussion of this history would require us to delve into Josephus and other ancient writers. For now, I only want to show how Revelation delineates the Pauline prophecy.
Revelation concerns the judgment of the Old Creation, both Jewish and Gentile. The entire bifurcated Old Covenant order is going to be torn down.
I believe Revelation 7 shows the salvation of the Jewish Remnant and the initial Gentile Church. The 144,000 are the Remnant, and the great multitude from the nations is the “mixed multitude” that accompanied them out of the Egypt of rebellious Judaism (cf. Rev. 11:8). These are sealed against the initial outpourings of wrath against Jerusalem and the world.
I believe that Revelation 10:7 points to what Paul called the fullness of the Gentiles, for it says that the mystery of God has been completed. At this point, it becomes necessary for John to preach again, this time to bring about the fullness of Israel. Right away we are shown the ministry of the two witnesses in Jerusalem, and their martyrdom. Here is jealousy and wrath poured out against those who provoke Israel, but the result of the witnesses’ deaths is that many feared and gave glory to God (11:13; cp. Acts 5:11-14). This, I believe, is the “fullness of Israel.” Immediately we are told that the world has become the kingdom of Christ (Rev. 11:15).
Revelation 12 & 13 back up to provide context for what follows, which is the harvest of this Fulfilled Church. The martyrdom of the two witnesses is the Desolating Sacrilege, or at least part of it. At this point, many of the Remnant fled Jerusalem and were saved (Rev. 12:14).
The new converts, the Fullness, were stuck in Jerusalem. I believe they are seen in 14:1, standing with the Lamb on Mount Zion. As long as these believers remained in Jerusalem, the city could not be destroyed. Thus, they had to be harvested first. The harvest of these saints is simultaneously the filling up of the cup of Jerusalem’s wrath, for the massacre of these saints eliminates Jerusalem’s protection, and calls down the full wrath of God against her.
The angels reap the harvest of the Fullness (14:14-20). We see the Fullness standing in heaven with God in Revelation 15. They were faithful to death. Their blood is the wine of God’s wrath, which He will make their killers drink (14:10). The Fullness joins their Lord outside the city (14:20), privileged to join Him in martyrdom (Col. 1:24).
The blood of these martyrs is put into chalices and poured out on Jerusalem, to her destruction (15:7; 16:1-21). The city is seen drinking this blood, taking into herself the death she visited upon them (17:6).
The martyrdom of the Fullness of Israel is what brings about the “life from the dead” that Paul spoke of in Romans 11. Thus, after the destruction of Jerusalem we are shown that Satan, who was on the earth during the Interim (12:9, 12), is cast into the abyss to deceive the nations no longer. The Church comes to life again, seated on thrones, and ruling with Christ for the millennium, which begins at that point (Rev. 20:1-6). This initial resurrection of the saints is a foretaste of the final resurrection to come at the end of history.