The Promises not Fulfilled by Christ’s First Coming

T. B. Baines

The interpretation which makes all the promises given in the Old Testament, particularly those concerning Israel and the land, flow out of Christ’s first coming rests on two assumptions:

1. that the church is the same seed of Abraham to which the promises are given; and

2. that the universal reign of David’s seed, the blessing of the nations and the bruising of the serpent’s head will all be fulfilled by the conversion of the world to Christianity.

Before examining these propositions, I will ask one question. Could any thoughtful and spiritual Jew, before the time of Christ, reading his own prophets and trusting God, have believed that God’s promises did not refer to national blessing and restoration, but to blessing of a different kind and given to a different people, blessing which must begin with the dispersion, and end with the absorption, of his own nation? If not, the prophecies, as above interpreted, could only deceive him. But let us examine these rules separately.

1. The first rule of interpretation is that the church is the seed of Abraham to which the promises are given. Now, that believers are the children of Abraham is not disputed. The question is whether they drain into themselves, and divert from Israel, the promises given under this head. In one of the Abrahamic promises, the seed named is Christ Himself; in the other, it is a countless multitude. To this innumerable seed was promised the perpetual possession of a certain geographical area, together with national supremacy in the earth. Now how can this be interpreted as the portion of the church? But since it has not yet been given to Israel, and since it is not the portion of the church, the promise still has to receive its fulfilment outside the church. In other words, the church does not set aside Israel, or usurp the promise of national blessing and glory. This is enough for our purpose, for if the church does not embrace all the unfulfilled promises, the common interpretation fails.

2. The second rule of interpretation is that the universal reign of David’s seed, the universal blessing of the nations, and the bruising of the serpent’s head, are all brought about by the conversion of the world to Christianity. 

Now assuredly, nobody denies the untold wealth of blessing flowing out to the nations of the earth from Christianity. So magnificent is the believer’s portion that, were we left to our own thoughts, we might well suppose these blessings to fulfil all God’s purposes of grace. But Scripture teaches otherwise. Speaking of Israel and their present rejection, it says, ‘Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?’ (Rom. 11:12). The world’s complete measure of blessing, then, is only brought in by the ‘fulness’ of Israel. 

But it may be asked, ‘Does not this mean the conversion of the Jews to Christianity?’ The Word of God does not say so, and all the argument of the chapter leads to the contrary conclusion. 

First, it is said that ‘as concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes’ (v. 28). Now, if they come into the same blessing, and in the same way, as the Gentiles, where is the contrast? In this case how are the Gentiles benefitted by the Jews being enemies as concerning the gospel? Or where is the election ‘for the fathers’ sakes’ if the Jews only receive the same portion as those who are not descended from the fathers? 

Secondly, the Gentile is warned that he may be cut off, and this warning becomes a sad certainty when we find that his tenure of privilege depends on a faithfulness in which he has entirely failed, for God’s promise of blessing to him is ‘if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off’ (v. 22). 

But thirdly, Israel’s exclusion ‘until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in’ (v. 25) shows that the period of Gentile blessing will end, and that Jewish blessing cannot go on at the same time as Gentile; in other words, that the blessings are of a character incompatible with each other. 

Fourthly, the whole reasoning of the chapter points to the cessation of Gentile, and the renewal of Jewish, privilege as a great dispensational change marked by the ‘Deliverer’ coming out of Zion, and turning ‘away ungodliness from Jacob’ (v. 26), a description wholly without meaning when applied to the conversion of Israel to Christianity. 

Thus the reign of David’s seed and the blessing of the Gentiles, instead of being brought about, as this rule of interpretation requires, by the Christianising of the world, only begins in its largest sense after Christianity has ceased, and Israel as a nation has been restored.