Some of my fellow biblical theologians may chafe at my interpretation. Adherents of biblical theology, such as myself, believe that specific stipulations of each covenant do not all remain in force, only the overarching promises and principles of some covenants are foundational. The problem is that some writers maintain so few elements from previous covenants as to blur the distinction between biblical theology and dispensationalism. We make it hard on ourselves when we try to distance ourselves from the false charge of “replacement theology.” 

By now, most cultural observers know of Tucker Carson’s interview with Senator Ted Cruz. Well into the discussion, Cruz noted that Carlson hadn’t asked him why he supported Israel. “So you still haven’t asked why, but I’m going to tell you why.” Cruz explained, “Number one, as a Christian growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. And from my perspective, I want to be on the blessing side of things.” Carlson later replied, “What does that mean? Israel?” The sarcasm was palpable.  

Is modern-day Israel the same Israel we find in the Old Testament? 

As a Reformed, biblical theologian, I have a nuanced position on modern Israel that links her with the Israel found in the Old Testament. Although modern Israel is not identical in every way to ancient Israel, she remains in the same stream of blessing as ancient Israel.  

The Bible records,  

“I will make you into a great nation,
    and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
    and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
    and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
    will be blessed through you” (Gen. 12:2-3).  

This is God’s covenant with Abram. God promises to make him a great nation, to bless him, and to make his name great. So significant will Abram be that all nations will bless him. The nations that bless Abram, God will bless. But the nations that curse Abram, God will curse. Abram represents the nation God has in view just as Adam represents all mankind. In the Old Testament, the nation foreshadowed in God’s blessing upon Abram is Israel, first formed under King Saul around 1020 BCE.  

In Romans 11, Paul links Israel after Pentecost with the Old Testament nation. He explains to the church at Rome “that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved” (vs.. 26). God is using Israel’s disobedience to open the way for the Gentiles also to receive the Abrahamic blessing, a mystery buried deep in organic revelation that itself has reciprocal meaning: the salvation of Israel.  

It’s important to explore the precise meaning of Romans 11:26 in context to lay aside any doubt that Paul has in mind the actual nation of Israel, a nation of special religion, language, and customs. Among the Reformed, the main interpretation is that Paul is referring to all ethnic descendants of Abraham. But this does not seem plausible. The imagery of the “wild olive tree” and the “cultivated olive tree” (vs. 17-24) looks back to Jeremiah and Hosea and is set after the birth of the Israelite united monarchy. The “Gentiles” (vs. 25) ceases to mean what it means if the term “Israel” (vs. 25) already includes Gentiles. Nor can we say that these are Jews scattered throughout the Roman Empire, a diaspora. Vs. 2 is incomprehensible apart from Elijah ministering in the northern kingdom of the nation of Israel. Paul’s use of Psalm 69 (vs. 9-10) underscores the messianic unfolding of the Davidic kingdom located in a real place, in real time—Jerusalem. Paul therefore envisions something of great Kingdom consequence for the nation of Israel. That “all Israel will be saved” may no doubt be a symbolic representation of the spiritual descendants of Abram. But it must also include the actual city of Zion of religious texts and traditions.  

Some of my fellow biblical theologians may chafe at my interpretation. Adherents of biblical theology, such as myself, believe that specific stipulations of each covenant do not all remain in force, only the overarching promises and principles of some covenants are foundational. The problem is that some writers maintain so few elements from previous covenants as to blur the distinction between biblical theology and dispensationalism. We make it hard on ourselves when we try to distance ourselves from the false charge of “replacement theology.”  

Missing in the practice of much biblical theology is the acknowledgement of those elements in covenants which remain in effect even well after a subsequent covenant has expanded and applied them differently. 

Take for example the biblical doctrine of dominion. God gave Adam dominion over the animals (Gen. 1:26-28). To Noah, God adds language regulating animal attacks. But the dominion mandate remains in force in the post-fall world (cf. Gen. 1:26-28 and 9:1). As I have written elsewhere, the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 establishes the Cultural Mandate of Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:15, not spiritualizes it out of existence.  

Covenant theology is not like an Apollo launch into space—we don’t detach all stages to achieve greater velocity on our way to 1 Corinthians 15.  

What is needed is better exegesis. We know, for instance, that the Old Testament law of circumcision does not carry over to the New Testament. How? Because the Bible stops that stipulation cold in its tracks (Acts 15:19-21). But we also know, or should, that Israel’s national proviso does carry over to the New Testament. How? Paul says so. The Bible exegete should always be careful to recall that not only the law given to Moses, but any biblical covenant “does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God” (Galatians 3:17). 

Paul knows nothing of an ethnic Israel only. There is no question that Old Testament Israel foreshadows the Church. But by the same token, Paul does not negate God’s set promise of future blessing upon the physical nation called Israel.  

Many people counter that the contemporary nation of Israel bears little resemblance to the nation under King David. The modern state, they say, was birthed as a “secular state.” What this position fails to see, however, is that what unites God’s blessing upon ancient Israel, and Israel today, does not depend on Israel’s internal political, religious, and cultural consistency over time. It depends on God’s promise. Israel could vanish from the solar system for 1,000,000 years, but if God had said that he will bless it, that promise will come to pass.  

What’s more, the nation of Israel didn’t exist even when God made his promises to Abram. That would take approximately another 576 years. So not only is the continual existence of the formal state of Israel unimportant to support God’s promise, but also its existence at all. 

The reader might also be surprised to learn the extent to which the formation of the Jewish state under David Ben Gurion harkened back to the Old Testament. Paragraph 13 of the Israeli Declaration of Independence (1948) provides that the state of Israel would “be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel (italics added); it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” 

What does it mean to bless Israel?  

In Galatians, Paul connects Abraham and the gospel to demonstrate that he was justified (God crediting his own righteous) through faith alone, not through adherence to the law. The introduction of the law of Moses did nothing to counter that fact. This truth, Paul argues, extends to all believers, Jews and Gentiles alike, who through faith on Jesus Christ are Abraham’s spiritual descendants and heirs to the promise of blessing. So, Paul can speak of both groups together as “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16).  

To bless Israel, then, is synonymous with blessing the gospel. The nation that does nothing to impede the church from declaring the gospel but instead provides it a flourishing context for the spreading and establishing of the kingdom of God on earth, will be blessed in a meaningful way that pleases almighty God.  

Whoa! Where’d national Israel go? Did I too just spiritualize it into the history books?  

No, because the situations in Romans 11 and Galatians 6 are very different. In Galatians, Paul is warning his readers of the Judaizers who taught that Gentile believers must obey key aspects of the ceremonial law of Israel, especially circumcision. The letter therefore stresses a new people in Christ united in God’s promise.  

In Romans 11, Paul is ministering to Gentiles who are wary of Jews reentering the city of Rome. Emperor Claudius had expelled approximately 4000 Jews from Rome in 49 CE due to growing public unrest from Christians preaching Chrestus (Christ). When Claudius died in 54, his order expired, and many Jews returned to the city, including believing Jews to the church at Rome. That concerned Gentile believers who were suspicious of the Jews. Paul seeks to unruffle Gentile feathers, highlighting God’s eschatological plan for Israel.  

In the end, whether one sides with Senator Cruz, or with Tucker Carlson, or with some other view, it remains wise to “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: They shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, And prosperity within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions’ sakes, I will now say, Peace be within thee” (Psalm 122:6-8).  

Dr. John Barber is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America serving as a missionary in Africa.