Christians, the Old Testament & cherry-picking

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Christians, the Old Testament & cherry-picking

Post #1

Post by fewwillfindit »

Johnmarc and I have decided to discuss the widely held view among skeptics that Christians cherry-pick which parts of the Old Testament they obey and which parts they do not obey. This discussion will surround the Mosaic Law and the Old and New Covenants.

Johnmarc will be taking the skeptical position, and I will be defending it. This will not be a formal debate, but rather a non-combative discussion regarding the topic. Johnmarc has expressed a keen interest in the subject, as he has always wondered just why and how fundamentalist Christians arrive at the conclusions at which they arrive without cherry-picking. Johnmarc is a liberal Christian who doesn't believe that the miracles in the Bible actually happened, doesn't believe in God, and is not a literalist.

I am a traditional Christian who does believe that the miracles literally happened, who does believe in God, and who reads the Bible as primarily literal. I contend that mainline orthodox Christianity does not arbitrarily cherry-pick which parts of the Old Testament to obey, but instead has a sound Scriptural basis from which it determines that it is not bound to the Law of Moses and the Old Covenant, and is instead under the New Covenant.

For those who are unfamiliar with Biblical terminology, a simplified explanation would be that I am going to demonstrate why the laws found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are not applicable to Christians.

It is my intention in this discussion to put to bed the continual cry from skeptics that Christian doctrine is arbitrarily cherry-picked as it relates to the Mosaic Law and the Old Covenant. It is not my aim to convince skeptics to affirm this doctrine or to be convinced of its validity. I contend that all I have to do to show that we do not arbitrarily cherry-pick is demonstrate why, from Scripture, we believe as we do. To me, cherry-pick means, "I like that, and that, nope not that, definitely not that, but I'll keep that and that." That is exactly what is implied when the accusation of cherry-picking arises.

I look forward to our discussion, johnmarc.

I will begin by making the first post.
Last edited by fewwillfindit on Sat May 14, 2011 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #11

Post by fewwillfindit »

I feel that I should clarify the position of conservative Christians regarding the canon. I have thoroughly covered this in another debate here: Sola Scriptura, but to cover the highlights, the Church had already reached a general consensus regarding the New Testament canon by the 5th century in that the majority of the church recognized the 27 books that we use today. It was officially closed by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent of 1546, and for Reformed Protestants it was officially closed in the Westminster Confession in 1647. However, not a single book was added to the New Testament canon between the 5th century to the present time, so for all intents and purposes, its recognition in the 5th century rendered it effectively closed. What the Church did in the 16th and 17th centuries was merely to ratify what was "already the mind of the Church" for over a millennium. The New Testament canon for Catholics and Protestants is identical. The differences lie in the Old Testament. The Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox accept variations of the deutero-canon (Apocrypha) and the Protestants do not.

We observe the history of the canon and consider it closed because God caused it to be closed by the 5th century. In other words, because it is the canon that has withstood the test of time, it exists solely by God's providence through human instruments.

It is not that we consider Paul, in a vacuum (my words, not yours), to be authoritative. It is that we feel that God chose his writings to be as authoritative as the rest of Scripture. This is why we demonstrate consistency when we harmonize Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, etc. We see the Bible as an organic whole.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #12

Post by johnmarc »

fewwillfindit wrote:I feel that I should clarify the position of conservative Christians regarding the canon. I have thoroughly covered this in another debate here: Sola Scriptura, but to cover the highlights, the Church had already reached a general consensus regarding the New Testament canon by the 5th century in that the majority of the church recognized the 27 books that we use today. It was officially closed by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent of 1546, and for Reformed Protestants it was officially closed in the Westminster Confession in 1647. However, not a single book was added to the New Testament canon between the 5th century to the present time, so for all intents and purposes, its recognition in the 5th century rendered it effectively closed. What the Church did in the 16th and 17th centuries was merely to ratify what was "already the mind of the Church" for over a millennium. The New Testament canon for Catholics and Protestants is identical. The differences lie in the Old Testament. The Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox accept variations of the deutero-canon (Apocrypha) and the Protestants do not.

We observe the history of the canon and consider it closed because God caused it to be closed by the 5th century. In other words, because it is the canon that has withstood the test of time, it exists solely by God's providence through human instruments.

It is not that we consider Paul, in a vacuum (my words, not yours), to be authoritative. It is that we feel that God chose his writings to be as authoritative as the rest of Scripture. This is why we demonstrate consistency when we harmonize Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, etc. We see the Bible as an organic whole.
We are saying the same thing in different words, so I think that we are ready to move on. At this point and in my mind, we are still framing the parameters of the debate. Will move on to the next point this evening, I hope.

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #13

Post by fewwillfindit »

johnmarc wrote:At this point and in my mind, we are still framing the parameters of the debate.
Agreed. As a side note, I'm game for following whatever pace and format works best for you.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #14

Post by johnmarc »

Part Three: What is the Old Covenant?
Fewwillfindit wrote:Exodus 34:27-28 ESV wrote:

And the Lord said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Deuteronomy 4:11-14 ESV wrote:

And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom. Then the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and rules, that you might do them in the land that you are going over to posess.


Here we see that the Ten Commandments were part of the Old Covenant. But that is not all that comprises the Old Covenant:

Exodus 24:12 ESV wrote:

The Lord said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain and wait there, that I may give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction."

Nehemiah 9:13-14 ESV wrote:

You came down on Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven and gave them right rules and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and you made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them commandments and statutes and a law by Moses your servant.


Here we see that God Himself gave the entire Law, including not only the Ten Commandments, but the other 603 laws as well, which comprises the Law of Moses ratified by the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is given from Exodus 20 to the end, plus Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
A little clarification here. The four passages that are listed here are specific to Mt. Sinai and seems a backtracking from where we have already been. This does not bolster your argument to include all 613 laws but weakens it. From these four passages, we can conclude that the Old Covenant is what Moses came down the mountain with---The Ten Commandments and nothing more. This seems an unnecessary and tangential addition to your argument.

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #15

Post by fewwillfindit »

johnmarc wrote:A little clarification here. The four passages that are listed here are specific to Mt. Sinai and seems a backtracking from where we have already been. This does not bolster your argument to include all 613 laws but weakens it. From these four passages, we can conclude that the Old Covenant is what Moses came down the mountain with---The Ten Commandments and nothing more. This seems an unnecessary and tangential addition to your argument.
It is not tangential, it is critical.

Look closely at the final two of the four passages I quoted. I chose them because they not only showed that the commandments were given on Mt. Sinai, but the Law as well. Note the distinction in these two passages:
Exodus 24:12 ESV wrote:The Lord said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain and wait there, that I may give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction."
Note that it does not say, "the law which is the commandment," but, "the law and commandment."

Nehemiah 9:13-14 ESV wrote:You came down on Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven and gave them right rules and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and you made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them commandments and statutes and a law by Moses your servant.
Here it twice makes a distinction between the law, statutes and commandments.


There are many more that I could quote to show that the Law of Moses was indeed part of the Old Covenant, but here is another:
Deuteronomy 5:1-33 ESV wrote:And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them, "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the rules that I speak in your hearing today, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today. The Lord spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire, while I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the Lord. For you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up into the mountain. He said: "'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. "'You shall have no other gods before me. "'You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. "'You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. "'Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. "'Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. "'You shall not murder. "'And you shall not commit adultery. "'And you shall not steal. "'And you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. "'And you shall not covet your neighbor's wife. And you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.' "These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me. And as soon as you heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes, and your elders. And you said, 'Behold, the Lord our God has shown us his glory and greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire. This day we have seen God speak with man, and man still live. Now therefore why should we die? For this great fire will consume us. If we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, we shall die. For who is there of all flesh, that has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of fire as we have, and has still lived? Go near and hear all that the Lord our God will say and speak to us all that the Lord our God will speak to you, and we will hear and do it.' "And the Lord heard your words, when you spoke to me. And the Lord said to me, 'I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you. They are right in all that they have spoken. Oh that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their descendants forever! Go and say to them, "Return to your tents." But you, stand here by me, and I will tell you the whole commandment and the statutes and the rules that you shall teach them, that they may do them in the land that I am giving them to possess.' You shall be careful therefore to do as the Lord your God has commanded you. You shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. You shall walk in all the way that the Lord your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land that you shall possess.
Here we see that God spoke to Moses not only the commandments, but all of the statutes and the rules.


It is also significant that Jews combine all 613 laws together. They call them the Mitsvot. If you click that link, there is actually a list of all 613 laws. You'll note that within them are the Ten Commandments.

Please let me know if you still find this to be inconclusive. I can provide many more passages that show that the Law of Moses is part of the Old Covenant.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #16

Post by johnmarc »

fewwillfindit wrote: Please let me know if you still find this to be inconclusive. I can provide many more passages that show that the Law of Moses is part of the Old Covenant.
Sorry for the confusion. This is all acceptable to me.

In summary:

The rules of engagement are as follows: Do Fundamentalists themselves have an internal Biblical algorithm for selecting and deselecting laws from the 613 laws within the OT (and old covenant) which will not allow for cherry picking.

Point one. The Old Covenant covers the entirety of the OT.

Point two. The voice of Paul has the same authority as Jesus (assuming the fundamentalist position that Jesus is speaking through Paul)

Both points conceded with caveats as noted.

Are we ready to move on?

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #17

Post by fewwillfindit »

johnmarc wrote:Point one. The Old Covenant covers the entirety of the OT.
I apologize if my statement earlier was confusing. The Old Covenant does not cover the entirety of the Old Testament. The Old Covenant was given to Israel beginning in Exodus 20 (with a foreshadow of the Sabbath in Exodus 16), and although it spans the time period from that moment all the way to the Cross, there were other covenants, such as the Noahide Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis) which preceded it, and in some ways transcend it.

Although the Writings and the Prophets are within the time period in which the Old Covenant was in effect, the Laws which were given as a stipulation of that Covenant were given in only four books of the Tanakh (Old Testament). These are part of Exodus, and all of Leveticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. There were, however, a few laws given in Genesis under the Noahide Covenant, which Jews consider to be binding on Gentiles.

When I speak of cherry-picking which parts of the Old Testament to obey and which parts not to obey in regards to the entire Law of Moses under the Old Covenant, I am speaking of the 613 laws given to Israel which they were bound to obey as their part of the agreement (covenant) between themselves and God.

I only mentioned the Prophets because Jesus mentioned that He was their fulfillment. There are references within the Prophets, one of which I have already quoted, which refer to the Law and the Old Covenant, so in that sense these particular verses would be relevant to this debate.

I only mentioned the entire Old Testament as a side note to indicate that sometimes the Old Testament is referred to as the Law and the Prophets (as a figure of speech), but in saying that, I was not indicating that this debate covers the contents of entire Old Testament. Technically, the Old Testament is the Law, the Writings and the Prophets. I truly wish I had left that little tidbit of trivia out of my first post to alleviate confusion.

johnmarc wrote:Are we ready to move on?
If you accept the explanation above, I am certainly ready to move on.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #18

Post by johnmarc »

fewwillfindit wrote:
johnmarc wrote:Point one. The Old Covenant covers the entirety of the OT.
When I speak of cherry-picking which parts of the Old Testament to obey and which parts not to obey in regards to the entire Law of Moses under the Old Covenant, I am speaking of the 613 laws given to Israel which they were bound to obey as their part of the agreement (covenant) between themselves and God.
johnmarc wrote:Are we ready to move on?
If you accept the explanation above, I am certainly ready to move on.
We promised each other at the outset not to get wrapped up in technicalities. So, let's not. You have included 613 laws--we seem to be on the same page. I am good with that.

Moving on to Part four: The New Covenant.

Will work on that today as I have time (I hope)

PS. edited to add: I view the number 613 as "comprehensive". I do not view it as a specific number for the purpose of this debate. Whether it is 607 or 619 for example, has no bearing on the algorithm that Few is trying to create. It is instead, merely a technicality that we are working hard to avoid.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #19

Post by johnmarc »

Part Four: The New Covenant
So what does the New Testament have to say about the Old and New Covenants?
Romans 10:1-4 ESV wrote:

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them [the Jews] is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
This seems clear. The ‘law’ (OC) ends for believers in Christ. The Jews are excluded.
Hebrews 8: entire chapter ESV wrote:

Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says:

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 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.
“I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah�
The passage seems to create a new covenant, but with the house of Israel and Judah and seemingly not with Christians. There is nothing in Hebrews chap. 8 that specifies Christians.
Here it shows that everyone is under the Law, regardless of whether or not they accept and affirm it:
Romans 2:12-16 ESV wrote:

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
This took me awhile. But it now seems clear. The Law applies to both Gentiles and Jews, Christians and Hebrews. Everyone is under the law.

Before I concede anything on Part four, please clear up these three points:

(1) The first passage (Romans 10: 1-4) seems to end the OC for Christians. But the last passage (Romans 2: 12-16 seems to continue the OC for everyone

(2) The middle passage (Hebrews 8) seems to give the NC to the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

(3) Each time we see the term, ‘Law’, can we safely assume that it means Old Covenant?

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #20

Post by fewwillfindit »

johnmarc wrote:1. The first passage (Romans 10: 1-4) seems to end the Old Covenant for Christians. But the last passage (Romans 2: 12-16 seems to continue the Old Covenant for everyone.
Yes, that is precisely why I quoted Romans 2. Everyone who is not covered under the New Covenant is by default under the Old Covenant. There is no escaping it.

johnmarc wrote:2. The middle passage (Hebrews 8) seems to give the New Covenant to the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
That's right! And how beautiful it is! This is what Paul calls the "mystery hidden for ages." This is the culmination of the plan of God laid out since the foundation of the world. Watch carefully as I lay out the story line from Scripture. I apologize for the wall of text to which you are about to be subjected, but Romans is a very technical and systematic book, and it very precisely explains the relationship between Israel and the Church. It is vital that you absorb every word.
Romans 9:1-8 ESV wrote:I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
Romans 9:25-33 ESV wrote:As indeed he says in Hosea,

"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'

and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"

"And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'

there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"

And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay." And as Isaiah predicted,

"If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,

we would have been like Sodom

and become like Gomorrah."

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,

"Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;

and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
Romans 10:1-21 ESV wrote:Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) or "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for

"Their voice has gone out to all the earth,

and their words to the ends of the world."
But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,

"I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;

with a foolish nation I will make you angry."
Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,

"I have been found by those who did not seek me;

I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me."
But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."
Romans 11:1-36 ESV wrote:I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written,

"God gave them a spirit of stupor,

eyes that would not see

and ears that would not hear,

down to this very day."

And David says,

"Let their table become a snare and a trap,

a stumbling block and a retribution for them;

let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,

and bend their backs forever."

So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

"The Deliverer will come from Zion,

he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";

"and this will be my covenant with them

when I take away their sins."

As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

"For who has known the mind of the Lord,

or who has been his counselor?"

"Or who has given a gift to him

that he might be repaid?"

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
Amen indeed! Now that you've read it, you can see why the backstory is so important in order to understand the answer to your question. I almost hesitate to make any commentary because it is so complete, precise and beautifully stated. But in answer to your question, we Gentile Christians, the wild olive branches, are grafted into God's covenant of salvation with Abraham, the cultivated olive tree, to which Israel, the natural branches, will be grafted back in as well. Thus we are co-heirs according to the promises made to Israel through Abraham regarding the New Covenant!

If you were a died-in-the-wool fundy like myself you would be getting pretty excited right about now. Can I get an amen?!

Ahem...just kidding. Okay then, on to the next question.

johnmarc wrote:3. Each time we see the term, ‘Law’, can we safely assume that it means Old Covenant?
No. The 613 laws of the Mosaic Law were the terms of agreement for the Old Covenant. Also, there are times in the New Testament when law just means law. Its meaning is detemined by context. For instance:
1 Corinthians 6:5-8 ESV wrote:I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
Somehow I don't think that is what you meant, but there it is just in case.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Post Reply