Andy Borgmann
JMEC349 - Christian Communities in the Middle East
Dr. Petra Heldt
November 17, 2003
Salvation: The Church's Response to the Question of Jewish Salvation and the New Covenant
The once classic debate amongst theologians regarding predestination vs. free will seemingly has taken a back seat to the new theological debate at hand: "continual Jewish salvation regardless of their acceptance on Jesus Christ" vs. "Judaism in and of itself cannot offer salvation." This topic is a hard one to trudge into because of the range of emotions attached to it. Since the horrible atrocities done to the Jewish people during the holocaust, anti-Semitism has become one of the greatest perceived evils in academia (and it should be).[1] However, to ignore this topic, or not give it the time it is due, would be as Donald G. Bloesch puts, "the worst kind of anti-Semitism because it means deliberately bypassing the Jews in giving out the invitation to the banquet of the kingdom."[2] It is the assertion of this essay that the contemporary Jews, like all people of this world, fall under the horrible spell of original sin, which requires a Savior in order to redeem their relationship with God. Before the time of Christ, this was done by obeying the Law and covenants Israel made with God, but Christ's life, death, and resurrection brought to the surface a new covenant spoken about in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Although Israel will be God's beloved, and special consideration should always be given to the history Christianity has rooted in Israel, to ignore the new covenant is essentially ignoring the God who made it, which can never be understood as an acceptable method of mediation between God and man.
Most of the dispute in the argument stems from the original covenant made between Abraham and God. Despite the importance of this covenant - as it essentially established what we now call Israel - there at least four other major covenants mentioned in the Bible (not counting the Noahic covenant). In addition to this, the Abrahamic covenant is not simply understood to be one covenant but actually two covenants, which shall be elaborated on later. Before the paper evolves into a discussion as what the New Testament (mainly Jesus and Paul) have to say about the salvation of the Jews, the discussion must start at the beginning, with the initial covenant. All covenants made between God and Israel in the Old Testament need to be carefully examined to see what exactly was promised, as well as noting was what not promise.
There are three major types of covenants found in the Old Testament: royal grant, parity, and suzerain-vassal. These types of covenants were not only found in the Old Testament, but also in countless documents from the Ancient Near East. The royal grant is understood to be an unconditional grant usually made between a king and a loyal servant. This grant was understood to be perpetual and unconditional - regardless of the actions either party. Parity covenants were those made between two equals, binding them in a mutual understanding of the terms and were understood to be conditional. The final type of covenant, suzerain-vassal, was between a great king and a subject king. This was understood to be a conditional covenant and could be canceled anytime the lesser king stop subjecting himself to the greater king.[3]

Type of Covenant

Royal Grant
Made between king and loyal servant
Made between two equal parties
Made between two ruling parties - one obviously less that the other
Table 1 - Types of Covenants
Although most of these covenants were made between a king and his subjects (whether a lesser king or citizens of his kingdom), it is not a far jump to understand these covenants in light of God's relationship to Israel. Understanding these forms of covenants is essential to understand the Biblical covenants because the Israelites understood what it meant to step into these types of covenants with God.
God started his relationship with Israel in Genesis 15:6-21 when he makes a covenant with Abram that 1.) his descendents will experience suffering and then blessing and eventually settle into a land of there own, and 2.) Abram himself will die at an old age. These are the only two promises made between God and Abram at this point. It is clear there is nothing promised to either Abram or Israel, yet except for that which is temporal. It is clear from the language of God in verse 17 that this is a royal grant covenant. It is made unconditionally to Abram for his righteousness thus far (v. 6) and will happen regardless of the actions that precede the covenant.
The second covenant between Abram (now Abraham) takes place in Genesis 17. The promises in this covenant include:

Promised to Israel from God

Confirmation of previous covenant
Numbers of offspring will increase
Father of many nations
Descendents will be fruitful
Dominion will stem from Abraham's line
Land of Canaan
Table 2 - Genesis 15 Promises
First of all it is clear by the language (v. 9) this is a Suzerain-vassal covenant made between the greater king (God) and the lesser "king" (Abraham). There are two very interesting notes pertaining to this discussion; according to this passage all of the promises are temporal (not eternal) and the covenant takes on a conditional element in verse 9. The first eight verses of the passage makes it easy to see the blessings God is bestowing upon His divinely appointed children, yet there is a catch. The catch is they have to keep the covenant themselves. It must be noted that from the beginning God required an Israelite acceptance in order to be apart of this covenant, and on top of that, all God promised was temporal blessings.[4]
The next major covenant made between God and Israel is found in Exodus 19-24 and is usually called the Sinaitic covenant. Before any promises are explained in this covenant, God makes the statement in Ex. 19:5, "Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant..." It screams that before Israel is allowed to "open their presents," they must first understand that this takes action on their part as well. Once this is understood God continues his promises:

Promised to Israel from God

Will be God's treasured possession
Kingdom of priest - a nation set apart
Table 3 - Exodus 19-24 Promises
In between the promises is one of the most famous passages in all the Bible. It should be noted that this is right smack in the middle of a covenant. In addition to God's statement about obeying the covenant in Ex 19:5, He also explains how to be obedient to this covenant

Stipulations of the Covenant

No gods before Him
No idol worship
Not misue the name of God
Keep the Sabbath set apart
Honor your parents
No murder
No adultery
No stealing
No slander
No coveting
Table 4 - Exodus 19-24 Stipulations
The rest of the covenant passage is Moses explaining how these ten stipulations are to be carried out. Once again it must be pointed out that God's promises to Israel at this point are both temporal as well as conditional.
The third covenant God made in the Old Testament is with Phinehas son of Eleazar. According to Numbers 25:10-13, because of Phinehas' good behavior God will unconditionally bless him by having him and his descendents be priests as long as there are priests. There isn't much importance to this covenant except to note another example of the royal grant covenant between God and a member of Israel.
It is not until the time of David do we see God resurface in a covenant-making role. In 2Samuel 7:5-16, God responds to David's request to build a temple by shrugging off that idea and stepping into a royal grant covenant between Him and David.

Promised to David from God

David's name will be made great
Israel will have a homeland
Wicked people will not oppress them
David's offspring will succeed him
Kingdom established through David
Punishment when offspring do wrong
Love will not take be taken away
David's house and kingdom will endure forever
Table 5 - 2Sam 7:5-16 Promises to David
This covenant is obviously a royal grant given the fact there are no stipulations put on it. It is clear that God is content with David, and because of his loyalty to Yhwh, David will continue to be blessed long after his death. Again, however, we have only temporal issues. The promises God makes to David make no mention of anything outside of an earthly blessing. Verse 15 is the closest there is to a non-temporal blessing, however, even that becomes a temporal blessing with the tag at the end of the verse relating to the earthly situation of Saul.
Thus far, five of the six covenants God makes with Israel have been discussed and it is important to note some points before we move on to the final covenant God makes with Israel. First of all, it is clear that nothing that was promised to Israel at this point has any equivalence to either an eternal salvation, or an eternal relationship with God. Even if one considers God's initial statement to Abraham in Genesis 12 (although not officially a covenant), it is clear that nothing has been promised that goes beyond the temporal. On top of that, the more important covenants that include all of Israel (Gen 17, Ex 19-24), are clearly conditional covenants. Up until this point, if Israel wants to remains Israel (God's beloved children) it has stipulations. It is at this point one must come to the realization that God has not promised anything to Israel that resembles an eternal salvation that is granted to them simply because they are members of Israel.
Instead of going through the entire history of Ancient Israel to explain how Israel clearly did not live up to the covenant initially they initially agreed to with God, it is better summarized by God himself in Isaiah 48. The audience of this message is made clear in verse 1 as "the house of Jacob, who are named Israel." There is no way around the fact that whatever is coming, is coming simply to Israel - those who call themselves the children of God. The passage continues with laments from God that indicate He is not happy with His children explaining they have not kept his covenant.
Is 48:18 "If only you had paid attention to My commandments! Then your well-being would have been like a river, And your righteousness like the waves of the sea. 19 "Your descendants would have been like the sand, And your offspring like its grains; Their name would never be cut off or destroyed from My presence."
In addition to that, God makes known there is something new coming, something they haven't seen before. Even if the Israelites want to claim that they have already heard this, God makes it known that what is coming is completely new.
Is 48:6 "You have heard; look at all this. And you, will you not declare it? I proclaim to you new things from this time, Even hidden things which you have not known. 7 "They are created now and not long ago; And before today you have not heard them, Lest you should say, Behold, I knew them.' 8 "You have not heard, you have not known.
The message rings loud and clear to its audience: Israel was given a chance, a covenant, and because of their disobedience that covenant has become null and void which allows God to create something new. The interesting thing about the passage is that no where do we see God saying he has given up on Israel. Unfortunately, the church usually misses this observation. It is clear that God is not abandoning Israel because of their disobedience. Instead He makes it known that because of their disobedience a new type of covenant is needed for Israel.
The "new things" God speaks about in Isaiah is explained with more detail to the Israelite reader in Jeremiah 31:31-34. It is here where God picks up His tradition of working with Israel through a covenant to discuss the new covenant that is coming (note that it has not yet come). This passage is going to be quoted in its entirety because of the importance this plays on logic followed later in this paper:
Jer 31:31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them, "declares the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the LORD,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
From the beginning of this passage, it is obvious that what is coming is "a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathersÉ" God blatantly lays it out to Israel that what is coming is nothing like what they have experienced thus far. So the readers are forced to ask themselves, what has Israel experienced thus far in their covenants with God? As it was mentioned earlier, the covenants previous this one that involved the entire body of Israel were both conditional and temporal. Although it has not been elaborated on by Jeremiah, he is implicitly statimg that was is coming is the new, unconditional, eternal, and final covenant God is going to make between Himself and Israel. At this point there is no mention of Gentiles, and it is clear first and foremost this new covenant was to be agreed upon and accepted by Israel.
Before this essay leaves the Old Testament and looks into what the New Testament has to say about the new covenant, it is vital to note that other places in the Old Testament do speak clearly that the new covenant will also include the Gentiles (Joel 2:28-32; Am 9:11-12; Mic 4:3-4; Hag 2:7; Zec 2:10-11); maybe none more clearly than Hosea 2:23: "And I will sow her for Myself in the land. I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion, And I will say to those who were not My people, You are My people!' And they will say, Thou art my God!'" Paul will have to do some later explanation in Romans and Galatians on how this gets play out practically, but the inclusion of the Gentiles into the new covenant is not simply a New Testament fabrication.
The biblical reader is then thrust into the New Testament where the actions, and words of Jesus Christ become the terms, stipulations, and promises God proclaims in the new covenant. It cannot be stressed hard enough at the beginning that Jesus was Jewish, He is in the line of David, and that He came for the Jews. There seems to be a popular wave of ideology in the academic world that says Jesus only came so that the Gentiles could be included in the covenant, but even a cursory look at Jesus' statements make it clear that is just not true. Matthew and Luke recognize the importance of Jesus' lineage and ethnicity by including long genealogies to make the point if there was any doubt regarding whom Jesus belonged to. In addition to that, observations regarding Jesus' ministry indicate that He knew He came for the Jews first. He ministered in predominantly Jewish regions, all twelve of his apostles were Jewish, and the majority of His disciples/followers were Jewish. Most convincing of all are His words in the narrative regarding the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:22-28:
22 And behold, a Canaanite woman came out from that region, and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed." 23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came to Him and kept asking Him, saying, "Send her away, for she is shouting out after us." 24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
To conclude that Jesus simply thought He came for the Gentiles is ridiculous to say the least. He knew whom He came for, and He knew whose Messiah He was. Despite the harsh words here, the second half of the passage does explain how the Gentiles fit into this picture, but that is not in question at this point. Again, it cannot be stressed enough that Jesus came as a Jew and for the Jews.
From here, one moves from the object of Jesus' mission, to the purpose of Jesus' mission: to provide salvation. Although typically salvation is looked as "going to heaven," to limit salvation simply to that is a far injustice to the price Jesus paid for it. Salvation should be understood as a broader concept that reconciles man to God, thus spurring the relationship all men were designed to have with their creator - this of course does include going to heaven. John's gospel takes this salvation and boldly proclaims that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ; John 14:6 states, "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me." It could not be made clearer that to be reconciled to the Father requires a relationship with Jesus Christ. Jesus goes further to say in Luke 12:9, "but he who denies Me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." Paul also resounds by saying in 2Timothy 2:12, "If we endure, we shall also reign with Him, If we deny Him, He also will deny us." If Jesus is the personification of the new covenant, which the New Testament and Jesus' own word indicate (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1Co 11:25), then one has to ask themselves, do contemporary Jews recognize Jesus to be this?[5]
The call of the original "church" recognized their call to minister to the Jews as well as the Gentiles. In Acts 1:8, the commission of the church is to go Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth to be a witness of Jesus Christ. If the message was only for the Gentiles, and the Jews could obtain salvation through the previous methods, there would be no reason to have the church stay in Jerusalem and Judea. In addition to that, Paul's calling - which is typically understood to be to the Gentiles - includes this statement in Acts 9:15: "But the Lord said to Anaias, Go! [Paul] is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel." The original mission of the church included the children of Israel. Why would this be if Israel already were capable of mediating between themselves and God using the old covenant? Even Jesus' final words to the church indicated that all nations (including Israel) needed to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19).
Much attention with this topic is drawn to Paul's letter to the Romans: particularly chapters 9-11. Paul's main concern in both Romans and Galatians is not the salvation of the Jews, but rather the salvation of the Gentiles. What is meant by that statement is that Paul did not have to argue for the salvation of the Jews in his time period, but rather it was the exact workings of the salvation of the Gentiles that was constantly brought into question? It is a bit of irony that 2000 years later we are now asking the reverse of the question. However, Romans 9-11 is a bit of a different story. Paul's desire in 9-11 is to show how God's word has not failed, even though a large part of Israel is no longer considered part of the covenant because of their lack of belief in Jesus Christ.[6]
The infamous passage begins with a statement by Paul saying, "I speak the truth in Christ - I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit." The use of "I am not lying," in Greek, indicates that Paul intended the readers to take what he has to say slowly and solemnly.[7] Continuing on, it is made evident that Paul has a deep understanding that part of his own race is not apart of the new covenant.[8] This is made clear in his statement, "For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites." Thomas Schreiner says:
What concerns Paul in Romans 9-11 is not merely that Israel has lost temporal blessings, or that its historical destiny has not evolved the way he anticipated. Paul agonizes over the place of Israel in Romans 9-11 because too many in his nation were not saved.[9]
This statement indicates that there is still a mission left to the Jews since they rejected their Messiah.
He continues on to explain that there are essentially two Israels: ethnic Israel and remnant Israel. The difference, according to Paul, is that ethnic Israel simply claims their lineage to Abraham is their salvation. He is making it evident that there is a true Israel beneath ethnic Israel. Yet the requirement to be apart of true Israel is not based on works, but rather on faith - which Paul understands as faith in Jesus Christ.[10] Nils Dahl concludes:
As Isaac, not Ishmael, as Jacob, not Esau, as the seven thousand at the time of Elijah, not the many who bowed to the knee to Baal, so the Jews who believe in Christ, not the rest, are the children of the promise, chosen by grace. The remnant that remains proves to Paul that God has not rejected his people and that his word stands firm.[11]
Paul believes there to be a new requirement to be a member of the true Israel and that is belief in Jesus Christ. This implies that those who do not believe in Jesus Christ no longer serve the same God. He certainly would not desire to almost forsake his own salvation for his brothers if they too were also saved by their obedience to the old covenant.[12]
Romans continues, and in verse 4 Paul makes it clear that, "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." One could argue that this is somewhat contradictory to Christ's own statements in Matt 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus' statement here makes the claim that He does not want the law and the prophets removed because the law and the prophets point to Him. Then he continues to say that He has fulfilled them, meaning what was incomplete, is now complete in Christ.[13] This takes us back to Paul's statement. Given the context of Romans 9-11, Paul is trying to make the point that Jews can no longer rely on the law because the law has been fulfilled in Christ. Essentially, the law is no longer an end within itself anymore, because Jesus Christ has now fulfilled it.
Kathryn Smith once asked the question in her Romans & Galatians class how can the church have confidence in a God that supposedly promise Israel to be His beloved bride but then in the 1st century AD switch it to the church. Theoretically if he switched from Israel to the church what prevents Him to switch from the church to something else. Her description was that of a parent who promises their older child a car when he turns 16, yet when he turns 16 they don't give him a car and then starts promising his younger brother a car when he turns 16. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the younger brother should have no confidence in his parents getting him a car. With that said, God will always remain faithful to Israel, and Romans 11:11-26 explains how Israel continues but that a new member of the covenant has now been added. The church should never be looked at as the body that replaced Israel - it hasn't, and Paul is certain of that. Rather, Paul indicates that the gentiles are grafted into Israel along with members of Israel that accept the new covenant. Yet those who do not accept the new covenant have lost their place within Israel and have been cut off. This cutting off is not irrevocable; as anyone who has been around an olive tree knows what is cutoff always has the ability to grow back into the tree. Yet in order to re-grow back into Israel, these cutoff branches must accept the new covenant - which is Christ.
This is where we return to the earlier discussion on Jeremiah 31:31-34. The new covenant is in the form of an unconditional, royal grant, which promises eternal salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ to both the Jews and the Gentiles who choose to accept it. This is the only covenant made where the elements are both eternal (not temporal) and unconditional. This covenant promises to be the final reconciliation between man and God both in the temporal world and the eternal world with only one stipulation: faith and obedience to Jesus Christ.
This forces us to return to the Smith's illustration regarding the two children of the parent being promised a car. Although the illustration is a valid one, it is somewhat incomplete because it simplifies things too much. A better way to look at it is a parent with 10 kids. The first five are obedient to the condition in which was stipulated in order for them to get a car. The parent remains faithful in getting them a car when they turn 16. However, starting with the 6th child, the next three children become disobedient to the agreement they had established which forces the JewishSalvationparent to change the contract with the children. The new contract builds on the older contract but with one new stipulation. At the same time this new stipulation gets added to the contract, the parent also decides to adopt another three children and they too are eligible under the same contract to receive a car at 16. However, there is still a choice that needs to be made for both the original children and adopted children: they both still have to accept new stipulation. Assuming one of the original children accepts, and one does not, illustrates perfectly how God remained faithful to Israel, given that they were given the choice to except the new covenant. But those that chose to deny the terms were not (and still not) granted salvation until they come to terms of the new covenant. Under the new covenant God's character remains faithful, Gentiles are included, and Israel are given the option to chose or deny the terms. Those that choose to deny the terms (Christ) are no longer apart of the figurative olive tree in Romans.
The last stumbling block to this argument is found in Romans 11:26 where Paul says, "and thus all Israel will be saved." This is the climax of the entire passage. It would seem illogical after two chapters of lamenting over the fact that some of his brothers are not within the new covenant, that Paul now claims that all Israel is saved and his lament is for nothing. Paul begins to clarify in verse 28 when he says, "From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers." Two things jump out of this statement: 1) Israel is an enemy of the gospel; 2) Israel will always be the beloved of God. The synthenization of this concept (and all of Romans 9-11) is that God will always be faithful to Israel, and they will always remain His beloved. But just as God continued to modify His covenant with Israel in response to their circumstances and disobedience, there is now a new element to their covenant together: Christ. The NIV Bible Commentary puts it, "The language does not require us to hold that when this final ingathering of Israel occurs, every living Israelite will be included, but only that Israel as a nation will be saved."[14] It is an issue of how on a macro-level, Israel will always be God's beloved, yet Jews on a micro-level cannot attain salvation except through the blood of Christ.[15]
The last segment of this paper requires the question what does ministry to the Jews look like? This paper has established that all men (both Jew and Gentile) must come to a realization of the deity of Jesus Christ. Modern Jews who claim to serve the same God because of our same heritage, is like the child in the car example that refuses to accept the terms of the contract but expects the car. The Jews (non-followers of Christ) simply do not worship the same God because they refuse to worship the God that established the new stipulations of the covenant. Bloesch says: "The church is betraying its evangelistic mandate if it withholds the gospel of salvation from the very people who gave us the Messiah and Savior of the world. Such an attitude could be construed as the worst kind of anti-SemitismÉ"[16] Those who suggest that they can best find God by sticking to the laws and traditions of the old covenant are in jeopardy given the fact this creates a divide between Jews and Gentiles that Christ deliberately tore down with His death (Eph 2:14).[17]
With that said, it should be the call of the church to feel part of its mission is to non-Christ believing Jews. Markus Barth says:
That the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled, that the dividend wall is broken down, that the good news is the same for every sinner and every nation - these facts cannot be kept secretly by Christians, for the Jews have as much right as do the Gentiles to hear of it, to experience it, to enjoy it."[18]
It should be understood that if the Law and the Prophets have been fulfilled this should not be kept secret from anyone. Karl Barth continues this thought by saying:
Éthe whole Church of Jesus Christ needs the Jews. She needs their failure: even this has turned into riches for the world; she need their remaining afar off: even this has enriched the Gentiles (Rom 11:12); she needs their rejection: even this was the means of the world's redemption (Rom 11:15) - but she needs even more their full entrance into the faith in their Messiah (Rom 11:12), their addition to the Gentiles and Jews who already do believe in Him (Rom 11:15). For when that happens, what is as yet hidden even from the Church will come to light, then she will receive those greater riches, now only promised to her: then the dead shall rise (Rom 11:15), then the it will become manifest and evident, that in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the end and the new beginning of all things have already taken place, that the Kingdom of God on a new earth and under a new heaven has already begun in secret.[19]
Karl Barth realizes that church is in need of the Jews, but he will not deny the fact the Jews are also in need of the church of Jesus Christ in order to mediate their salvation - which God has only promised through Christ.
Ministry to the Jews however takes on a different strategy than compared to the other religions of the world. It must first start with a confession of indebtedness to the Jews for providing the church with a rich history, and for giving the Messiah to the world. It also would include a confession of guilt for a history spreading anti-Semitism. Bloesh says, "Unlike other peoples, the Jews are not called to something entirely new and unexpected but rather invited to share the fulfillment of their ancestral pledge made to Abraham." The conversion of non-Christ believing Jews will depend more on God than on our own missionary "expertise." Paul's statement that "all Israel will be saved," also indicates that it is within God's plan that all of Israel will accept the new covenant and has strong eschatological implications.[20] Bloesch continues:
Missions to Israel that result simply in the conversion of individuals should nevertheless command the support of the Christian community, for in this way we extend the hand of fellow ship to those who are foreordained to be our brothers and sister in the LordÉJewish Christians have a special role in the economy of redemption, for they are a sign both of Israel's presence in the church and of the presence of Jesus Christ in IsraelÉThey remind us that both Israel and the church have a common destiny just as they had a common origin.[21]
As previously supported in the essay, that common destiny on an individual level still is dependant on the individual coming to understand Jesus Christ as the Messiah.
In conclusion, there is much the church needs to learn from Israel. We share a rich history, which was intended to be shared. The church needs Israel and Israel needs the church. Mission to the Jews is essential for an micro-level (individual) of salvation to a particular person. Paul makes it boldly clear at the heart of Romans 9-11 when he says, "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved" (Ro 10:9). There is no way around it. Not even observing all the laws of the old covenant can provide salvation to an individual. Yet nothing will ever be able to tear Israel on a macro-level (corporate) away from God for she will always be God's beloved and that cannot be replaced.

Barker, Kenneth L and John R Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Corp, 1994. CD-ROM. Available from OakTree Software, Inc, 2000.
Barth, Markus. Israel and the Church. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1969.
Barth, Karl. A Shorter Commentary on Romans. Trans D.H. van Daalen. London: SCM Press, 1963.
Bloesch, Donald G. "All Israel Will Be Saved: Supersessionism and the Biblical Witness." Interpretation 43 (Apr 1989): 130-142
Cranford, Michael. "Election and Ethnicity: Paul's View of Israel in Romans 9:1-13." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 50 (June 1993): 27-41.
Dahl, N.A. "The Future of Israel." In Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1977.
Kohlenberger, John R. The NIV Compact Nave's Topical Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Crop, 1993. CD-ROM. Available from OakTree Software, Inc, 2000.
Schreiner, Thomas R. "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation? Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36 (Mar 1993): 25-40.

[1] Micahel Cranford, "Election and Ethnicity: Paul's View of Israel in Romans 9:1-13," Jounral for the Study of the New Testament 50 (June 1993), 27.

[2] Donald G. Bloesch, "All Israel Will Be Saved: Supersessionism and the Biblical Witness," Interpretation 43 (Apr 1989): 130.

[3] John R. Kohlenberger III, The NIV Compact Nave's Topical Bible, 1993, prepared by OakTree Software, Inc [CD-ROM] (Grand Rapids, MI, 2000).

[4] Donald G. Bloesch, 132.

[5] Donald G. Bloesch, 132.

[6] Thomas R. Schreiner, "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation? Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36 (Mar 1993), 27.

[7]Micahel Cranford, 29.

[8] Michael Cranford, 30.

[9] Thomas R. Schreiner, 26.

[10] Michael Cranford, 33-34.

[11] N.A. Dahl, "The Future of Israel," in Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1977), 149.

[12] Michael Cranford, 37.

[13] Kenneth L. Barker, and John R. Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, 1994, prepared by OakTree Software, Inc [CD-ROM] (Grand Rapids, MI, 2000).

[14] Kenneth L. Barker.

[15] Thomas R. Schreiner, 33.

[16] Donald G. Bloesch, 140-41.

[17] Donald G. Bloesch, 141.

[18] Markus Barth, Israel and the Church (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1969), 111.

[19] Karl Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans, trans. D.H. van Daalen (London: SCM Press, 1963), 140-41.

[20] Donald G. Bloesch, 142.

[21] Donald G. Bloesch, 142.