# Is the olive tree in Romans 11 a covenantal tree?



## biblelighthouse (Jan 21, 2006)

In a previous thread, a disagreement arose concerning the nature of the olive tree in Romans 11.

I would like to focus on this particular point: Is the olive tree in Romans 11 a covenantal tree, or not? Is it a symbol of the Covenant of Grace? 

I would argue that the olive tree in Romans 11 *is* a covenant tree, which contains both believers and unbelievers, both in the OT and in the NT. The visible church was mixed in the OT, and the visible church is still mixed today. We assume all members of the visible church are members of the invisible church, until a goat takes off his sheep's clothing, apostatizes, and is cut off from the tree.

To start of this spin-off discussion, I will paste my thoughts on Romans 11 here, which I had put in the other thread:



. . . And how about Romans 11? Some people get broken off the covenant tree, because of unbelief. 



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> Well, it is you who have decided that the tree is a _covenant tree._ Paul never says it is.



Paul didn't just pull the olive tree out of thin air. There was already a rich OT background for the olive tree motif. Paul was an expert in the OT Scriptures, and simply used a covenantal analogy that was already well-known by Israelites of his time.

Read *Jeremiah 11*, and consider how closely it is paralleled by Romans 11:

*"* The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, "œHear the words of *this covenant*, and speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and say to them, "˜Thus says the LORD God of Israel: "œCursed is the man who does not obey the words of *this covenant* which I commanded your fathers in the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, "˜Obey My voice, and do according to all that I command you; so shall you be My people, and I will be your God,´ that I may establish the oath which I have sworn to your fathers, to give them "˜a land flowing with milk and honey,´ as it is this day."´" And I answered and said, "œSo be it, LORD." Then the LORD said to me, "œProclaim all these words in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, saying: "˜Hear the words of *this covenant* and do them. For I earnestly exhorted your fathers in the day I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, until this day, rising early and exhorting, saying, "œObey My voice." Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but everyone followed the dictates of his evil heart; therefore I will bring upon them all the words of *this covenant*, which I commanded them to do, but which they have not done.´" And the LORD said to me, "œA conspiracy has been found among the men of Judah and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem. They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers who refused to hear My words, and they have gone after other gods to serve them; the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken *My covenant* which I made with their fathers." . . . "œ What has My beloved to do in My house, Having done lewd deeds with many? And the holy flesh has passed from you. When you do evil, then you rejoice. *The LORD called your name, Green Olive Tree*, Lovely and of Good Fruit. With the noise of a great tumult *He has kindled fire on it, And its branches are broken.* "œFor the LORD of hosts, who *planted you*, has pronounced doom against you for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke Me to anger in offering incense to Baal." *"*

God's people (Israel) is the olive tree, and the branches are broken off because of covenant disobedience. The branches are broken off because of unbelief (Rom. 11:20). But not all of the branches were broken off; only some of them were (Rom. 11:17). And Gentiles like you and me are grafted into the same olive tree. Nevertheless, even today, people can be "cut off" the olive tree if they show themselves faithless (Rom. 11:22).


*Isaiah 17:4,6* also parallels Romans 11:

*"* "œ In that day it shall come to pass That the glory of Jacob will wane, And the fatness of his flesh grow lean. . . . Yet gleaning grapes will be left in it, Like the *shaking of an olive tree, Two or three olives at the top of the uppermost bough, Four or five in its most fruitful branches*," Says the LORD God of Israel. *"*

The olive tree is the people of God. And in this case, the people are called "olives" rather than "branches". But the analogy is otherwise identical. The apostate olives are shaken off the tree, leaving behind the faithful olives.


*Isaiah 24:13* speaks likewise:
"When it shall be thus in the midst of the land among the people, It shall be like the *shaking of an olive tree*"


Israel, the covenant people of God, is also called an "olive tree" in *Hosea 14:6*. 


David, a covenant member of God's people, calls himself an "olive tree" in *Psalm 52:8*.


And regarding the olive tree motif, we see _direct relevance to the covenantal inclusion of children_ in *Psalm 128*:

"Blessed is every one who fears the LORD, Who walks in His ways. When you eat the labor of your hands, You shall be happy, and it shall be well with you. Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine In the very heart of your house, *Your children like olive plants* All around your table. Behold, thus shall the man be blessed Who fears the LORD. The LORD bless you out of Zion, And may you see the good of Jerusalem All the days of your life. Yes, may you see your children´s children. Peace be upon Israel!"

Notice how this Psalm interlinks the blessings of Israel together with the blessings of an individual faithful Israelite. Israel as a whole is an "olive tree", as we already know. And an individual faithful Israelite is therefore considered an "olive tree", as we already know. And here in Psalm 128, we find that *the children of believers are also considered to be little olive plants*. 


The children of a believer are considered to be olive plants, not brambles!!!


----------



## turmeric (Jan 21, 2006)

In my humble opinion, the olive tree will not always be a "mixed thing", all the unbelieving branches will be gone one day, and only the true Israel will remain.

Also, I'm convinced, the way that we show faithfulness to the covenant (of grace) today is by believing the Gospel - that Jesus is both God and man, that He lived a sinless life and died to pay for the sins of the elect, and that this is the only hope we have of being right with God. I do not believe that "covenant faithfulness" consists of particular acts that we do to "remain". I just want to make that clear in case misunderstandings of covenant language arise, not trying to start something.
 

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by turmeric]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> In my humble opinion, the olive tree will not always be a "mixed thing", all the unbelieving branches will be gone one day, and only the true Israel will remain.



I agree. But of course we both agree that "we're not there yet". The tree still consists of a mixed crowd.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 21, 2006)

Yep!


----------



## non dignus (Jan 21, 2006)

Joseph,

Your work on the background of Paul's olive tree is very good. (You and I as ex-Arminians used to nurture that tree to make firewood out of eternal security.) Is it mere coincidence that Arminians and Baptists don't enjoy the shade of that tree? 

And the analogy of root support gives good fruit that circumcision is contiguous with baptism. He who chops off infant baptism withers infant circumcison.

Thanks again, for my continuing education.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 21, 2006)

Of course it is covenantal, the olive tree is Israel. Israel has always been God's covenant people.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 21, 2006)

Joseph,
That's good stuff. I am printing it out and putting it in a folder.


----------



## Tom77 (Jan 21, 2006)

I think it's just the "visible" people of God, and see no reason to think that it *must* be conceived as limited strictly to the members of the covenant of circumcision. Those who are visibly and objectively connected to the people of God are part of the tree because they are part of the physical/visible body. 

Not only those who were actually in the Israelite covenant, but also the strangers who were in her midst, suffered when God brought judgment upon the visible, physical household of God in the OT. When God cut off the unbelieving branches, both unbelieving Israelites and unbelieving non Israelites (and there were often PLENTY of them during times of judgment) were severed from the collective group.

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by Tom77]


----------



## VanVos (Jan 22, 2006)

Fred Marlone said in his book Baptism of Disciples Alone



> Romans 1:11-24 specifically deals with the issue of the unbelieving Jews being broken off from the root because of their unbelief about Christ and Gentiles being grafted in because of their faith (Acts 13:47-48). The warning to Gentiles is that if they do not continue in faith, and have a better [sic? bitter] attitude toward Jews, then God may once again turn generally from them and engraft Jews into the root by their faith.
> The issue in Romans 11 is not that of an individual being a New Covenant member who has been broken off as a covenant breaker. Rather, Paul speaks of faith, not ethnic origin, as the prerequisite of being engrafted into the root of the New Covenant era, whether Jew or Gentile. According to Robertson's [O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God, 2000] discussion of Romans 11:26:
> 
> "All Israel," then, consists of the entire body of God's elect from among both Jews and Gentiles. This is the group whom Paul calls "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16, where he insists that Christians must walk according to the rule that no distinction is to be made between circumcised and uncircumcised people (v. 15). Here Paul clearly uses the term Israel to refer to the elect Jews and elect Gentiles as constituting the true Israel of God.
> ...



[Edited on 1-22-2006 by VanVos]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 22, 2006)

In light of the two posts above,
here are three questions for Tom Hicks and Pastor Goundry:


Question #1:
Why were many Israelites broken off of the covenant tree? 

Question #2:
Why can Gentiles be broken off of the covenant tree today? 

Question #3:
Do you agree that questions #1 & #2 are parallel, with parallel answers? If not, why not, exegetically?


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 22, 2006)

Another quote from Bishop Ryle who, be it remembered, was a paedo-baptist:-


> We must always remember that the passage before us is a parable, and as a parable it must be interpreted. We must be careful not to press each word and sentence in it too far; and as in all parables, we must look at the main scope and the great lesson it contains, rather than each clause- The old saying is most true, that "no parable stands on four legs;" and in all parables there are parts which are only the drapery of the figure, and not the figure itself. Neglect of this caution does much harm to the souls of Christians, and is the cause of much crude and unsound doctrine...........We are dealing with figures and pictures, mercifully used in order to meet our weak capacities; and we must take care we do not draw from them doctrinal conclusions which contradict other plain passages of Scripture.



Ryle's younger contemporary, W.H. Griffith Thomas wrote:-


> As we have seen, we must be careful in our interpretation of this figure of the olive tree and its branches. *The figure is not to be pressed.*



Martin

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 22, 2006)

I can also see this as being just what it is.... a warning passage. Sin and love of the world ruins future generations and a prideful spirit will cause our fruit to be cut off and pruned. It is basically the same kind of warning as in Revelation 2. Can a regenerate believer be cut out of the tree? I don't think that is the right conclusion.

(Rom 11:20-22) Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. *Be not highminded, but fear*: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.



(Rev 2:4-5) Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Evidently they didn't repent or remain. Ephesus is gone from what I understand. 

It is a warning passage.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> In light of the two posts above,
> here are three questions for Tom Hicks and Pastor Goundry:
> 
> ...



#1 What kind of Covenant Tree is it. Covenant of Circumcision? 

#2 See above post...

#3 Not necessarily. I see two different promises to Abraham. One is general in application to all of his physical seed. The other is specific in what the book of Galatians specifically says. The true children of Abraham are children of faith. We are counted in His Righteous Seed, not seeds. Two different promises or Covenants.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 22, 2006)

> #1 What kind of Covenant Tree is it. Covenant of Circumcision?



Randy, Paul is speaking of past and in the present tense. As Joseph stated in the initial post:



> Paul didn't just pull the olive tree out of thin air. There was already a rich OT background for the olive tree motif. Paul was an expert in the OT Scriptures, and simply used a covenantal analogy that was already well-known by Israelites of his time.



The olive tree is the kingdom of God, His bride, the church.

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> What kind of Covenant Tree is it? Covenant of Circumcision?



Randy, please read Jeremiah 11, as I posted above. The "covenant" is explicitly mentioned 5 times, and the branches broken off the olive tree are done so because of their covenant unfaithfulness . . . the broken branches are covenant breakers.

So you please tell me what "covenant" is discussed in Jeremiah 11.




> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> I see two different promises to Abraham. One is general in application to all of his physical seed. The other is specific in what the book of Galatians specifically says. The true children of Abraham are children of faith. We are counted in His Righteous Seed, not seeds. Two different promises or Covenants.



The covenant mentioned in Romans 11 *cannot be different* from the covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 11. The two chapters are tied directly together. Each chapter speaks of the *same olive tree*, and each chapter mentions the *same breaking off of branches*. And when people get grafted into the tree in Romans 11, it is explicitly the *same tree*, not a different one (Rom. 11:17, 24).




[Edited on 1-22-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 22, 2006)

Sounds like a covenant of works or Mosaic covenant to me. Not like the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31. 



> (Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
> 
> (Jer 31:33-34) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.



Sounds like everyone is regenerate in this New covenant. Sounds like the old one is done away with. No stipulations in the New Covenant but the surety of the Lord's forgiveness of sin. It also sounds like everyone in this covenant knows God when they are in it. I think I will agree with John Owen and the scriptures on this one. We are in a New and Better Covenant. The Old is done away with. Sounds like he has cut out the old and is grafting in the New. 



> (Heb 8:6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
> 
> (Heb 8:7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
> 
> ...



As I stated before. Which Covenant? The Root is always to be considered God.... It will not change. But He has chosen to change the branches evidently.

Can you be cut out of the covenant if you are regenerate?

As I stated before... I believe it is a warning passage just as Revelation 2 is. 


[Edited on 1-22-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Sounds like a covenant of works or Mosaic covenant to me. Not like the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31.
> 
> 
> ...



Why warning passages in the NT if one cannot be cut off?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Sounds like a covenant of works or Mosaic covenant to me.



Randy,

Please focus specifically on Jeremiah 11, and the direct parallel in Romans 11, and tell me how it is even _possible_ that they are talking about two different covenants, two different olive trees, etc.

I don't see how you can draw a dichotomy between Jeremiah 11 and Romans 11. Whatever one is referring to, the other has to be referring to the same thing.

What exactly *IS* the "olive tree", in your opinion? Whatever it is in Romans 11 has to be identical to whatever it is in Jeremiah 11.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 22, 2006)

I think this article by Richard Pratt effectively answers Baptist objections to infant baptism based on Jer 31 and Hebrews 8: 

http://tinyurl.com/8yguk


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> I think this article by Richard Pratt effectively answers Baptist objections to infant baptism based on Jer 31 and Hebrews 8:
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/8yguk



This old chestnut has been covered before. Pratt's argument is that the New Covenant is indeed one in which everyone will know the Lord- only not until Christ comes again.

But this horse won't run. The writer to the Hebrews does not quote Jer 31 only in Heb 8; he does it again in Heb 10:15ff, and here it is firmly fixed in the present time:-

*'But the Holy Spirit also witnesses *[present tense]* to us; for after He had said before, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their hearts and in their minds will I write them." Then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." Now where there is* [present tense]* remission of these, there is *[present tense] *no longer an offering for sin. Therefore.......let us draw near.....'*

The New Covenant was a present reality for those to whom _ Hebrews_ was written, and so it is for us. Praise the Lord!

Martin

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 22, 2006)

Yes, Martin, the New Covenant is a present reality for us.

Nobody argues otherwise. The Pratt article is in agreement. All paedobaptists on here are in agreement.

The issue is not whether the NC is _itself_ a present reality.

Rather, the issue is whether _all aspects_ of the NC have reached their fruition yet.

The NC has certainly been inaugurated, and we are certainly in it. But the flower hasn't finished blossoming yet. There are still more of the elect to be grafted into the NC, and there are still some non-elect that need to be cut out of the NC. And all of this won't be complete until the 2nd coming of Christ. THEN all aspects of the NC will finally reach their fruition, and THEN 100% of remaining NC members will be regenerate.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 22, 2006)

A "Don't Fall Off the Cliff" sign in the middle of Kansas isn't much of a warning.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 22, 2006)

I wish I had a covenant tree in my back yard. That would be cool.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> I wish I had a covenant tree in my back yard. That would be cool.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 22, 2006)

The problem with a covenant tree is the fruit is already & not yet.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> [What exactly *IS* the "olive tree", in your opinion? Whatever it is in Romans 11 has to be identical to whatever it is in Jeremiah 11.


That's what I'd like to know from the credo-Baptist perspective. It doesn't have to be Randy.

None of my Baptist brethren have interacted with the parellel between Jeremiah 11 and Romans 11 yet. 

Please do not quote Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 with your interpretation of what they mean. This is not to be rude but I think that position is well established by now.

I'm interested in how you harmonize the established Covenant Tree analogy and its re-use in Romans 11.

If, as you say, the tree is not Covenantal then explain why Paul, a masterful theologian, with a Pastor's touch, under inspiration, would provide such a confusing analogy. So much content would already be assumed into the mind by his use of the word picture.

If you assume a re-use of well-worn analogy here without any connection to previous use, do you apply that standard to all images that are re-tread in the New Covenant? For instance, when Pliate declares: "Behold the Man!" is that an isolated verse?

It's not that I disagree that symbols ought not to be pushed too far. Nevertheless, I'm an experienced teacher and I would not begin a powerpoint presentation on the history of France by placing a picture of the Union Jack on the first slide with "God Save the Queen" playing in the background.


----------



## VanVos (Jan 23, 2006)

Jeremiah and Romans are parallel passages. They both give us a picture of redemptive history. The branches in Jeremiah 11 and Romans 11 are those that God turns his favor away from. I don't think we necessarily have to have some Old testament covenant breaking in Rom 11. It's true that Jeremiah 11 speaks of Israel breaking the Covenant, but that was as a Nation under the typological Covenant of works that was abrogated with Christ's 1st advent. Gal 3:23-27. The Olive tree is more a picture of redemptive history than it is an individual standing before God.


[Edited on 1-23-2006 by VanVos]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 23, 2006)

Nobody is claiming that the tree is a picture of an individual. Nobody is claiming a static redemptive historical picture either. The issue is whether the tree is Covenantal. You seem to indicate that it is.

Is the Olive Tree the Israel of God and, if so, is it a Covenantal Tree?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> It's not that I disagree that symbols ought not to be pushed too far. Nevertheless, I'm an experienced teacher and I would not begin a powerpoint presentation on the history of France by placing a picture of the Union Jack on the first slide with "God Save the Queen" playing in the background.



Yuk yuk yuk


----------



## VanVos (Jan 23, 2006)

In short I believe the olive tree, as a picture of redemptive history, was used in conjunction with (or in reference to) the Israel's reality under the Covenant of works in the Old testament. In the New Testament the picture remains but the Covenant is abrogated because Christ's came to fulfill the Law. So we do have the Israel of God in Romans 11 but as it is seen through the lense of redemptive history. In my understanding there is no violable covenant in this passage.



[Edited on 1-23-2006 by VanVos]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 23, 2006)

I do have some answers for you guys but I want to make sure my ducks are all in a row first. 

Joe, look at the last part of my last post a little closer Joe. Maybe if you are on IM later tonight we can work on it together.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 23, 2006)

The olive tree analogy has the elements of a covenant. The condition for not being broken off is belief. 

The root 'supports you'. "Do not boast against the roots." Thus the roots are the patriarchs. The tree is organic for all of redemptive history as the Isael of God.

The covenant curse is stated as well at the end, _'...if you continue in faith otherwise you also will be cut off.'_

[Edited on 1-23-2006 by non dignus]


----------



## VanVos (Jan 23, 2006)

But the curse is not the result of the breaking of the New covenant but rather for the rejection of the Messiah. As hebrews 10:29 says: what sorer punishment do you think those deserve who have done depite the Spirit of Grace.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 23, 2006)

Justification has always been through faith, for _"...the just shall live by faith." _Habakkuk 2:4_ "...Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness."_


----------



## VanVos (Jan 23, 2006)




----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> In short I believe the olive tree, as a picture of redemptive history, was used in conjunction with (or in reference to) the Israel's reality under the Covenant of works in the Old testament. In the New Testament the picture remains but the Covenant is abrogated because Christ's came to fulfill the Law. So we do have the Israel of God in Romans 11 but as it is seen through the lense of redemptive history. In my understanding *there is no violable covenant in this passage*.



Van Vos, 

The Olive Tree in Jeremiah 11 is clearly a covenantal tree. The covenant is mentioned explicitly 5 times, and is referred to even more than that. Those who were part of the olive tree were part of it by virtue of the covenant, regardless of ethnic descent. And those who were broken off of it were specifically broken off due to covenant breaking. 

*You cannot divorce the olive tree from the covenant. It is a covenantal tree. Jeremiah 11 requires this.*

And if Paul used the "olive tree" motif differently in Romans 11, then he was a complete goofball. As Rich pointed out:



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> It's not that I disagree that symbols ought not to be pushed too far. Nevertheless, I'm an experienced teacher and I would not begin a powerpoint presentation on the history of France by placing a picture of the Union Jack on the first slide with "God Save the Queen" playing in the background.



In other words, if Paul didn't want to speak covenantally, then he would have known better that to talk about an "Olive Tree". --- His listeners in that day and age wouldn't have even been able to hear Romans 11 without thinking directly about the covenant. It wouldn't have even been a possibility for them. Anybody with OT background would have seen the connection immediately.


----------



## VanVos (Jan 24, 2006)

> Van Vos,
> 
> The Olive Tree in Jeremiah 11 is clearly a covenantal tree. The covenant is mentioned explicitly 5 times, and is referred to even more than that. Those who were part of the olive tree were part of it by virtue of the covenant, regardless of ethnic descent. And those who were broken off of it were specifically broken off due to covenant breaking.
> 
> You cannot divorce the olive tree from the covenant. It is a covenantal tree. Jeremiah 11 requires this.




I wasn't denying that the tree in Jeremiah 11 is covenantal. It was used in reference to Israel unique role in redemptive history. 



> And if Paul used the "olive tree" motif differently in Romans 11, then he was a complete goofball.


 
Like I said the olive tree is primarily a picture of redemptive history not a covenant. Therefore we have continuity of thought from Jeremiah 11 to Romans 11, but not identity of thought.

VanVos

[Edited on 1-24-2006 by VanVos]


----------



## non dignus (Jan 24, 2006)

Romans 11:15-24

"_*15. For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 
16. And if the firstfruit is holy, so is the lump: and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 
17. But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree; 
18. glory not over the branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that bearest the root, but the root thee. 
19. Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 
20. Well; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 
21. for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee. 
22. Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God's goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 
23. And they also, if they continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24. For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?*_

Look at the covenant language here. "If.... then.." 
There is a covenant blessing: "If they continue not in unbelief....God is able to graft them in again". 
There is also covenant cursing: "Because of unbelief they were broken off" and " if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 

Standing alone it is covenantal; compare it with Jer 11 and Isaiah, the covenantal analogy is incontrovertible.

The only other option is that Paul is speaking of salvation as the Arminians teach. It is a poor model as anything but a covenant.

The COG must be in view as new gentile branches are grafted into the old Jewish root. It is obviously talking about both OT and NT saints.


----------



## VanVos (Jan 24, 2006)

They do indeed come under a curse, because they're remain under the curse of the Adamic covenant because they rejected Christ. There is no New Covenant being broken here. Again this is looking at the Israel of God through lense of redemptive history.


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 24, 2006)

It seems to me that the olive tree is clearly Israel. In Jer 11, Israel has broken the (Mosaic) covenant and incurred God's wrath. That seems straightforward enough. As it is written, *'My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord'* (Jer 31:32). The root or lump of Israel is Abraham, but he is also the root of all believers, both Jew and Gentile (Isaiah 51:1; Rom 4:11; Gal 3:29 ).

In Rom 11:11ff, it is important to note that the only reference to a covenant is in v27. Before that, Paul is speaking to Gentile Christians who suppose that the majority of the Jews have been cut out of the olive tree for ever and they have been grafted in as the relacement for them. Paul warns them not to 'boast against the branches.' If they are replacements for physical Israel, they may do no better than Israel did (vs 20-21 ).

God used the Jews' rejection of Christ for His glory because it drove the apostles to preach to the Gentiles, bringing them salvation (v12. cf. Acts 13:45-46 etc). How much more glory, says Paul, will God receive when the Jews finally turn to their Messiah (v15 )?

Paul points out that although the Jews, apart from a small remnant, have been 'blinded' and been cut off from the root (Abraham. cf. Matt3:9-10; John 8:44 ), God is able to graft them back in (vs23-24 ). For the true seed of Abraham is believers, both Jew and Gentile (Rom 4:11-12; Gal 3:7 ); the wall of partition between them (Eph 2:14 ) has been broken down in Christ and so *'all Israel will be saved'* under the New and Everlasting Covenant (v27 ) in Christ's blood. He is the *'Deliverer'* who will *'take away their sins'*, something the OT sacrifices could not do (cf. Heb 10:4 ). 

Paul continues that just as the Roman Christians had once been *'disobedient to God'*, and under His just wrath, but had now received mercy (v30 ), so the Jews, who are presently under God's wrath, may also be reconciled in the future (v31 ). God has committed both Jew and Gentile to disobedience at different times, so that He may display His mercy to both parties to the praise of His glorious grace (v32ff). 

I think the point that Joseph is missing is in v21. *For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.'* The key word is "if". In fact, God may yet have mercy upon the Jews and so all of God's chosen people will be delivered. *'For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable,'*

I haven't had time to work this through as I should, but I hope it's not too turgid.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 24, 2006)

My Ducks are not in a row. I am still working on it. I am not so sure that the trees are covenant trees. If they are there are distinctions that need to be made in relation to the Two Adams and the Two Covenants that the Scriptures speak of. Plus there are covenants that have unregenerate and regenerate involved together and others that only have regenerate believers involved. 

The mentioning of Jeremiah's tree is in relation to covenant breaking Isreal and the Old Covenant. The mentioning of the Romans tree is in relation to a warning in light of the New Covenant. They are both parables it seems. I am not sure they are stressing the same thing.
In Jeremiah the tree is consumed. It is burnt up. It is judged. There is no redemption mentioned in the text. It is destroyed unlike the parable in Romans. The two trees are different kinds of parables I think.



> Greens Literal Translation
> Jer 11:16 Jehovah called your name, a green olive tree, fair, with fine fruit. With the sound of a great roaring, He has set fire to it, and its branches are worthless.





> ESV
> Jer 11:16 The LORD once called you 'a green olive tree, beautiful with good fruit.' But with the roar of a great tempest he will set fire to it, and its branches will be consumed.





> NASB
> Jer 11:16 The LORD called your name,
> "A green olive tree, beautiful in fruit and form";
> With the noise of a great tumult
> ...





> NKJV
> Jer 11:16 The LORD called your name,
> Green Olive Tree, Lovely and of Good Fruit.
> With the noise of a great tumult
> ...



I don't believe the trees are the same because this tree is judged, consumed, and worthless. Jeremiah only seems to be a picture of God's judgment.

Still looking at the text.

[Edited on 1-25-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2006)

Is my question being avoided or does it need further clarification?

If my credo-Baptist brethren insist on constructing a mind-numbing route around the tree analogy then please just say this: "Paul shouldn't have used an Olive Tree Analogy here because it causes confusion in his audience who would have known that, through Scripture, the Olive Tree is a type of the Covenant."

The issue with systems of theology is not that they cannot explain something but whether the explanation harmonizes. A system that has to constantly qualify passages might need to be tweaked.

Why does a good teacher like Paul introduce the picture of a Covenant for the purposes of describing something that is not Covenantal?

[Edited on 1-25-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> I don't believe the trees are the same because this tree is judged, consumed, and worthless. Jeremiah only seems to be a picture of God's judgment.



Randy,

You need to consider the entire OT background to the olive tree, not just Jeremiah 11 alone. Jeremiah focuses on the great judgment coming, which will break off most of the branches. But *Isaiah 17:6* clearly says "two or three olives" will be left "on the topmost branches", which corresponds directly with the Jewish branches in Romans 11 which are not broken off. And *Isaiah 24:13* says the same thing.

Also, don't forget that I pointed out *Psalm 52:8* and *Psalm 128:3*. Being a covenant keeping member of God's people (Israel) automatically made an individual person partake of olive-ness. Likewise, simply being the _child_ of a covenant-keeping member of God's people made that _child_ partake of olive-ness.

Paul was an OT scholar, and no doubt had the full OT olive tree context in mind when writing Romans 11.



[Edited on 1-25-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Is my question being avoided or does it need further clarification?
> 
> If my credo-Baptist brethren insist on constructing a mind-numbing route around the tree analogy then please just say this: "Paul shouldn't have used an Olive Tree Analogy here because it causes confusion in his audience who would have known that, through Scripture, the Olive Tree is a type of the Covenant."
> ...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



I think you are adding to much thought to the text. Think Context Joe. Jesus uses Leaven in different parables but you can't always make it mean sin. Sometimes it is the Kingdom. 

Look at the context. The context also forbids Jeremiah to pray for these people during the time it was revealed. The tree is just made worthless and the branches are destroyed. The whole thing is burned. The Lord planted it and is now judging it with total destruction. 

I think you are reading to much into the text.


----------



## VanVos (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Is my question being avoided or does it need further clarification?
> 
> If my credo-Baptist brethren insist on constructing a mind-numbing route around the tree analogy then please just say this: "Paul shouldn't have used an Olive Tree Analogy here because it causes confusion in his audience who would have known that, through Scripture, the Olive Tree is a type of the Covenant."
> ...



What question is being avoided? I thought I had explained to you in the post above that there is continuity of thought between Jeremiah 11 and Romans 11 but not identity thought. That is Jeremiah speaks of Israel after the flesh where as Romans speaks of Israel after the Spirit (the Israel of God). 

The New Testament does this a lot. Earthy Jerusalem, heavenly Jerusalem Gal 4:25-26. Physical Temple, Spiritual temple 1 Cor 3:16
Law Moses, Law of Christ 1 Cor 9:21. It's a case of type anti type

So Paul used the Olive Tree to show there has always been a *true* Israel of God that always has bared godly fruit. So yes, in a sense, it does represent a covenant, the inviolable New Covenant in Christ's blood. 

Hope this helps Jonathan


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2006)

Fair enough Jonathan. I think you are one who admits that the tree is Covenantal while others are avoiding it.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 24, 2006)

Branches were broken off. What were they broken off from? 
The apostate Jews were members of _something_, and then they were disqualified. What were they disqualified from and by what rule? 
They were cut off from the covenant community by the terms and conditions of that covenant.

Wild branches were grafted in. What were they grafted into?
The covenant community.

Is the Israel of God some amorphous society? No. It is a holy nation, a royal priesthood, built on the apostles and prophets, all defined in terms of _I will be your God and you shall be My people_. 

This is the structure of a covenant.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> Branches were broken off. What were they broken off from?
> The apostate Jews were members of _something_, and then they were disqualified. What were they disqualified from and by what rule?
> They were cut off from the covenant community by the terms and conditions of that covenant.
> ...



Read the text.....

Context....
What is being said?
I have no problem with a covenant being recognized. But the text says the tree is burned. Read the verses I posted above from the text. If you want, Carnal Isreal is being destroyed... Jeremiah is commanded not to pray for this olive tree. judgment is upon them.

The Tree in Romans is not destroyed.

[Edited on 1-25-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 24, 2006)

(Jer 11:9) Again the LORD said to me, "A conspiracy exists among the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

(Jer 11:10) They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, who refused to hear my words. They have gone after other gods to serve them. The house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant that I made with their fathers.

(Jer 11:11) Therefore, thus says the LORD, behold, I am bringing disaster upon them that they cannot escape. Though they cry to me, I will not listen to them.

(Jer 11:12) Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry to the gods to whom they make offerings, but they cannot save them in the time of their trouble.

(Jer 11:13) For your gods have become as many as your cities, O Judah, and as many as the streets of Jerusalem are the altars you have set up to shame, altars to make offerings to Baal.

(Jer 11:14) "*Therefore do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer on their behalf, for I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their trouble*.

(Jer 11:15) What right has my beloved in my house, when she has done many vile deeds? Can even sacrificial flesh avert your doom? Can you then exult?

(Jer 11:16) *The LORD once called you 'a green olive tree, beautiful with good fruit.' But with the roar of a great tempest he will set fire to it, and its branches will be consumed.*

(Jer 11:17) *The LORD of hosts, who planted you*, has decreed disaster against you, because of the evil that the house of Israel and the house of Judah have done, provoking me to anger by making offerings to Baal."

(Jer 11:18) The LORD made it known to me and I knew; then you showed me their deeds.

(Jer 11:19) But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter. I did not know it was against me they devised schemes, saying, "Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name be remembered no more."

(Jer 11:20) But, O LORD of hosts, who judges righteously, who tests the heart and the mind, let me see your vengeance upon them, for to you have I committed my cause.

(Jer 11:21) Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, and say, "Do not prophesy in the name of the LORD, or you will die by our hand"--

(Jer 11:22) therefore thus says the LORD of hosts: "Behold, I will punish them. The young men shall die by the sword, their sons and their daughters shall die by famine,

(Jer 11:23) and none of them shall be left. For I will bring disaster upon the men of Anathoth, the year of their punishment."

This tree is Carnal Isreal. The one Paul is speaking of is Spiritual Isreal.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 25, 2006)

Whether the olive tree was burned or broken, we know it wasn't totally destroyed. NT prophecy refines OT prophecy.

The fact we agree on is the tree was burned because Israel went whoring after other gods. The Lord often used the marriage analogy as a covenant model. That is not to say the olive tree model won't work next to a marriage model. That is not to say burning the tree won't work next to cutting off branches. 

This change in the analogy, pruning, would certainly demonstrate God's long suffering and grace. The topic of Paul's discussion in Romans 11 is the question of whether or not the Lord has completely cast off His ancient people. This is the answer to the warning brought by the prophets as covenant attorneys:
"No. I will graft in new branches."


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 25, 2006)

Randy,

You are still ignoring *Isaiah 17:6*, which clearly says "two or three olives" will be left "on the topmost branches", which corresponds directly with the Jewish branches in Romans 11 which are not broken off. And *Isaiah 24:13* says the same thing. --- In the OT, when these passages were written, what did they mean?



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> This tree is Carnal Isreal. The one Paul is speaking of is Spiritual Isreal.




Randy, this is not even possible. How can people be *cut off* from "Spiritual Israel"? Wouldn't that be Arminianism? If the Romans 11 olive tree entirely consists of regenerated, justified, glory-bound people, then it is NOT possible for them to be cut off.

But what does the text say?

"For if God *did not spare the natural branches*, He *may not spare you either*. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. *Otherwise you also will be cut off.*"


Thus, it is *impossible* for the Romans 11 tree to simply be regenerate, "Spiritual Israel" . . . unless you want to become an Arminian.


----------



## VanVos (Jan 25, 2006)

Like I said it is spiritual Israel from the perspective of redemptive history. That's why I quoted Malone at the start of the discussion. It's speaks of God's general dealings with both Jews and Gentiles. Many Jews (the natural branches) did not embrace their Messiah so God generally turned away from the Jews and turned to the Gentiles. This passage is not talking about the ordo salutis but rather ordo historia. It's not about indviduals being in out of a covenant. 

As for the Isaiah passages, again it's a case of type and antitype. After the Syro-Israelite attack on Judah only few Jews remained in the *land* hense the topmost branch remains. In Jeremiah's day all the Jews went in to exile, hense all the branches are broken.




[Edited on 1-25-2006 by VanVos]


----------



## non dignus (Jan 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> 
> 
> Fred Marlone said in his book Baptism of Disciples Alone
> ...



Malone quotes O. P. Robertson but I'm willing to bet that Robertson sees the olive tree as a picture of the COG.

I'm not saying this is ordo salutus. I agree it's more ordo historia, or better _ordo foederis_. 

The covenant analogy doesn't break down if the number of persons changes. It fits with the body of elect or elect individuals.



> This text, therefore, does not deal at all with whether an individual can be placed in the New Covenant and then removed as a covenant breaker.



There is however, a covenant curse to the NC believer who doesn't continue in faith. So it does deal with it in a warning.



> _Malone, originally posted by VanVos_
> 
> Rather, Paul speaks of faith, not ethnic origin, as the prerequisite of being engrafted into the root of the New Covenant era, whether Jew or Gentile.


We agree, but engrafting requires the covenant sign. How can one be a branch or be engrafted apart from the covenant sign? Thus the picture is of the old sign of circumcision supporting the new sign of baptism as proof of a new graft. The tree can't be speaking of elect only because election doesn't permit being cut off from Israel.


----------



## VanVos (Jan 25, 2006)

Nobody is denying that New Covenant memebers receive the sign of the covenant. Like I said it's not the *same* tree as Jeremiah 11. The branches broken off were never in the New Covenant, never part of the Israel of God. It represents God dealings with those who rejected the Messiah. In redemptive history God has now turned to the gentiles.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> The branches broken off were never in the New Covenant, never part of the Israel of God.




So what do you make of the Gentiles who get cut off after being grafted in?

Surely you are not suggesting that they were "never in the New Covenant"!


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 25, 2006)

Joseph,
Olive trees were ubiquitous around the Mediterranean in ancient times and were a major part of the economies of the various lands. This is still the case as you will know if you've visited the area. They also have very deep roots (I'm told) and live for a very long time.

It is therefore very natural for David, Jeremiah and Paul to use them in parables, metaphors or similies. However, to insist that every mention of olives must always be covenantal (or always anything else!) is very poor interpretation as your teachers will tell you if you ask them. The context determines the meaning in each case. In Psalm 54:8, the reference is to David himself who *'trusts in the mercy of God'* and in Psalm 128:3, although the children would be Mosaic Covenant members, it certainly does not mean they are in the Covenant of Grace. Jeremiah could not find a single Old Covenant member *'who seeks the truth'* (Jer 5:1 ). 

If you scan through the OT looking at the children of faithful men, you will find that *more often than not*, they turned out to be apostate. I'm not saying that this is the norm for the children of Christians, but I am saying that you can't draw the conclusion that you are trying to.

The olive tree reference in Jer 11 is obviously to Israel as it also is in Rom 11 as I have pointed out above.

This seems like a good opportunity for me to announce my withdrawal from the Puritan Board. Thanks for the fun, chaps. Cheerio!

Martin

[Edited on 1-25-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## VanVos (Jan 25, 2006)

As I have stated numerous times it has nothing to do with New Covenant breaking. This is redemptive historical of God's dealings with the two major ethnic groups (Jew and Gentile), not the ordo salutis. 

Surely your not saying that there could have been a Jew in Paul's day that was originally in the Covenant, and then out of the Covenant (verse 17), and then back in the Covenant (verse 23) Makes no sense sorry. 



> Surely you are not suggesting that they were "never in the New Covenant"!



1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 

Surely John wasn't suggesting that these people were never in New Covenant. 

Allow the clearer portions of scripture to interpret more the symbolic.

Btw even though we disagree I do appreciate the discussion.

God bless Jonathan


----------



## non dignus (Jan 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> The branches broken off were never in the New Covenant, never part of the Israel of God.


They were in the Mosaic Covenant you agree. That covenant was added to the COG because of transgressions. Therefore the broken branches were members of the COG annunciated to Abraham. They were members of Israel; not elect, because they fell into unbelief. They were in the covenant and they were not elect. It is one covenant of grace, one tree, multiple dispensations. 



> It represents God dealings with those who rejected the Messiah.


Yes. Those who rejected Messiah brought on themselves the covenant curse.

Take care, Martin.

[Edited on 1-26-2006 by non dignus]


----------



## VanVos (Jan 25, 2006)

> They were in the Mosaic Covenant you agree. That covenant was added to the COG because of transgressions. Therefore the broken branches were members of the COG annunciated to Abraham. They were members of Israel; not elect, because they fell into unbelief. They were in the covenant and they were not elect. It is one covenant of grace, one tree, multiple dispensations.



Yes, that's exactly my point. They were part of the Mosaic Covenant but not the New Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was violable hense the exile and the covenant curse. The New Covenant is inviolable, *not like* the the Mosaic (Heb 8:9) Also this doesn't mean that there were members of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant had it's historical fulfillment in Joshua 21:43-45. It has it eschatological fulfillment in the New Covenant Gal 3:29.


I'll miss you Martin, my fellow reformed baptist Brit.

[Edited on 1-26-2006 by VanVos]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> As I have stated numerous times it has nothing to do with New Covenant breaking. This is redemptive historical of God's dealings with the two major ethnic groups (Jew and Gentile), not the ordo salutis.



I never suggested that the olive tree had anything to do with the ordo salutis. 

Furthermore, your suggestion that this passage merely deals with "God's dealings with the two major ethnic groups" doesn't fly. It's like saying, "God was talking about omeletes, not eggs." Plus, it simply is not true that God turned totally away from the Israelites, and totally toward the Gentiles. If that were the case, then Rom. 11 would say that ALL the old branches would be broken off, not merely SOME of them, as the text says. --- But since only SOME are broken off, and SOME remain, we cannot merely be looking at God's dealing with an ethnic group . . . we are also looking at how God is dealing with INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS of that ethnic group. Which Israelites were broken off? The unbelieving ones. Which ones remained? The believing ones. Because of that word "some" in Rom. 11:17, it is not possible to turn this text into a general and simplistic "turning from the Israelites to the Gentiles" text. While that overarching view is certainly true, and is certainly included in this text, that view alone cannot account for certain features of this text, particularly that phrase, "*some* branches".




> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> Surely your not saying that there could have been a Jew in Paul's day that was originally in the Covenant, and then out of the Covenant (verse 17), and then back in the Covenant (verse 23) Makes no sense sorry.



Yes, that is precisely what happened.

In fact, there is a prominent Jew in Paul's day who fits this very description: Paul himself!

Saul of Tarsus was definitely born a covenant member and he was given the covenant sign.

But then Saul was cut off from the covenant, by rejecting Christ. Saul himself was one of the branches broken off the olive tree due to his unbelief.

Then, thankfully, in Acts 9, Christ appeared to Saul and changed his heart as well as his name. Paul, now a believer in Christ, was grafted back into the olive tree. Paul was in covenant with God again.



> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



John certainly suggested no such thing. These people were New Covenant members, who proved themselves apostate, and received the covenant curses. That they "were not all of us" is a reference to their unregenerate status.




> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> 
> Allow the clearer portions of scripture to interpret more the symbolic.



I agree . . . you mean passages like Hebrews 10:26?



> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> 
> Btw even though we disagree I do appreciate the discussion.
> 
> God bless Jonathan



I appreciate the discussion too, my brother. 

God bless you!


(And congratulations to what you're doing, teaching the doctrines of grace in your church . . . that's got to be tough in the AOG denomination!!)


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> Jeremiah could not find a single Old Covenant member *'who seeks the truth'* (Jer 5:1 ).



Hyperbole. Was Jeremiah himself not a covenant member? Did he himself not seek the truth?



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> If you scan through the OT looking at the children of faithful men, you will find that *more often than not*, they turned out to be apostate.



But what kind of parents were these "faithful men"? From what I can tell, Abraham, David, Hezekiah, etc. were not model parents. Just because they had faith doesn't mean they raised their children correctly.






> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> This seems like a good opportunity for me to announce my withdrawal from the Puritan Board. Thanks for the fun, chaps. Cheerio!
> 
> Martin



WHAT?!?

Why are you leaving?

I'm going to miss you!

You are my favorite sparring buddy!! 


But now that you are leaving, I feel like I'm losing a pal. 

Please come back and visit from time to time!!

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## non dignus (Jan 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> 
> 
> > They were in the Mosaic Covenant you agree. That covenant was added to the COG because of transgressions. Therefore the broken branches were members of the COG annunciated to Abraham. They were members of Israel; not elect, because they fell into unbelief. They were in the covenant and they were not elect. It is one covenant of grace, one tree, multiple dispensations.
> ...



No. The new covenant is violable. That's what I am arguing. _"They went out *from us* _(from the covenant of grace)_ making manifest they were not *of us*. _(of the covenant of redemption, that is, of the elect).

The Abrahamic covenant will have it's final fulfillment when there is a new heavens and a new earth. The land promise is this: "The meek shall inherit the earth." 

Rev. Goundry, I would like to suggest Mark W. Karlberg's _Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective_, Wipf and Stock Publishing.

PS I see a covenant of redemption within the covenant of grace. The baptist's problem is he is not seeing the subtle aspects of election within the visible covenant of grace along with the distinction of the visible church and the invisible church.

For example, Martin went out FROM us making manifest he was not OF us.

-just KIDDING!!!


----------



## VanVos (Jan 25, 2006)

> Furthermore, your suggestion that this passage merely deals with "God's dealings with the two major ethnic groups" doesn't fly. It's like saying, "God was talking about omeletes, not eggs."


It does deal with two ethnic groups, it also deals with the Israel of God from all of redemptive history


> Plus, it simply is not true that God turned totally away from the Israelites, and totally toward the Gentiles.


Where did I say that God turned totally away from the Jews?



> If that were the case, then Rom. 11 would say that ALL the old branches would be broken off, not merely SOME of them, as the text says. --- But since only SOME are broken off, and SOME remain, we cannot merely be looking at God's dealing with an ethnic group . . . we are also looking at how God is dealing with INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS of that ethnic group.
> 
> Which Israelites were broken off? The unbelieving ones. Which ones remained? The believing ones. Because of that word "some" in Rom. 11:17, it is not possible to turn this text into a general and simplistic "turning from the Israelites to the Gentiles" text. While that overarching view is certainly true, and is certainly included in this text, that view alone cannot account for certain features of this text, particularly that phrase, "some branches".


 
The ones that remain were the Jews who had faith in the Messiah. The Natural branches that were broken off are Jews that rejected the Messiah. Naturally they were supposed to believe because the gospel is to the Jew first, but they saw themselves unworthy of eternal life so God moved *generally* to the gentiles Acts 13:46. They never did believe, they were never members of the New Covenant. 



> Yes, that is precisely what happened.
> 
> In fact, there is a prominent Jew in Paul's day who fits this very description: Paul himself!
> 
> ...



Okay this helps me see the major difference between our views. I do not see the New Covenant as same in kind to the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is different in kind as well as administration, it´s not like the old covenant (Hebrews 8:9) 

In scripture the Old and New Covenants are antithetical: 

The Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ (John 1:17) 
These women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are slaves ... but the Jerusalem above is free (Galatians 4:24, 26) 
For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second ... When he said, 'A new covenant,' he made the first obsolete (Hebrews 8:7, 13) 

In other words Paul was in Covenant with God again but now in a completely different *kind* of covenant, which is completely of grace and entirely salvific. The Old Covenant was no such thing, rather the Law was the Sinai covenant, given in the form of a typological republication of the Adamic covenant of works. If I understand you correctly, you´re saying that Paul rejoined the same covenant he left, the only difference being is he rejoined the *same* covenant in its final administration. 

But now I think I'm touching on the more central issue that divides credos and paedos"¦ maybe for another discussion sometime.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 25, 2006)

How were OT saints justified? 
They were justified by faith in God's promises, merited by Christ on the cross. This is the COG. It was first proclaimed in Gen 3:15.

Any questions?


----------



## VanVos (Jan 26, 2006)

Of course, who would deny such an essential doctrine. That does not change the fact that the Law was the Sinai covenant, given in the form of a typological republication of the Adamic covenant of works. 

Here's man position on Covenant Theology, I affirm your above statement http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=10149


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> 
> The ones that remain were the Jews who had faith in the Messiah. The Natural branches that were broken off are Jews that rejected the Messiah. Naturally they were supposed to believe because the gospel is to the Jew first, but they saw themselves unworthy of eternal life so God moved *generally* to the gentiles Acts 13:46. They never did believe, they were never members of the New Covenant.
> 
> ...




If what you are suggesting is true, then how do you explain verses 23 and 24?

"And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in *again*. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be *grafted into their own olive tree*? "

You seem to agree with me that Saul of Tarsus was one of the branches broken off the olive tree. But according to the passage above, when a broken branch is grafted back into the olive tree, it's back into the _same tree_, not a different one. Thus, whatever Saul was cut out of, is the same thing he was grafted back into.

Verses 23 and 24 do not permit us to draw a stark dichotomy between what unbelieving Jews were cut out of, and what believing Jews are grafted back into. They are grafted back into the same thing they were cut out of: the covenant of grace.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> Of course, who would deny such an essential doctrine. That does not change the fact that the Law was the Sinai covenant, given in the form of a typological republication of the Adamic covenant of works.




But do not forget that the Sinai covenant came 400 years after the Abrahamic covenant. The New Covenant may be "not like" the Mosaic covenant, but it is very much like the Abrahamic covenant. In fact, I would argue that the New Covenant IS the Abrahamic covenant renewed.

The Abrahamic covenant continued for 400 years.
Then, the Mosaic covenant was inaugurated, and ran side by side along with the Abrahamic covenant.
Then, the Mosaic covenant was abolished, and the Abrahamic covenant continued, now in a renewed state.

You see, the Mosaic covenant was abrogated, but the Abrahamic covenant never was abrogated. It continues to run even today.


----------



## VanVos (Jan 26, 2006)

> If what you are suggesting is true, then how do you explain verses 23 and 24?
> 
> "And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? "



This is saying that Jews are normally part of the Israel of God because onto them was given the oracles of God and the promises Rom 3:1 If the Jews of Paul´s day had repented and embraced the Messiah then they would have joined the Israel of God, and once again would have been considered apart of that family heritage of those who believe the gospel. That´s what it means for them to be engrafted into their own olive tree; they were supposed to believe the gospel like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 



> You seem to agree with me that Saul of Tarsus was one of the branches broken off the olive tree. But according to the passage above, when a broken branch is grafted back into the olive tree, it's back into the same tree, not a different one. Thus, whatever Saul was cut out of, is the same thing he was grafted back into.



Saul was an Old Covenant member who initially rejected the Messiah and came close to being condemned with Old Covenant community. The branches that were broken off speak of those Jews which did not repent as Saul did, but rather continued to persecute the church. Now if those Jews had repented, like Paul they would have become members of the New Covenant. They would have been engrafted into the same tree as their forefathers. That is the Jews of Paul´s day would have joined the true Israel. The Jews at large would have returned to that *same* gospel their forefathers had believed, the same olive tree. There is not enough in this passage to concluded that this speaking of a individual Jew who rejoined the same covenant he left.


----------



## VanVos (Jan 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VanVos_
> ...



True the Abrahamic is not like the Mosaic covenant. But the Abrhamic covenant is fulfilled by the New Covenant, like the Davidic covenant. See my link above for my position on Covenant Theology. 

Jonathan

[Edited on 1-26-2006 by VanVos]


----------



## non dignus (Jan 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> Of course, who would deny such an essential doctrine. That does not change the fact that the Law was the Sinai covenant, given in the form of a typological republication of the Adamic covenant of works.
> 
> Here's man position on Covenant Theology, I affirm your above statement http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=10149


_Originally posted by VanVos in a previous thread_
"I believe in the New Covenant that was made in the upper room between Christ and the* elect sinner* that promised redemption and eschatological glory. This covenant on the part of the elect is unconditional. (Heb 8:6-13, Heb 2:9-11) " [/quote]


When you qualify the sinner as 'elect' here, I think you are being imprecise. While you are making a true statement, (the COR is within the greater COG) there ARE members in the COG who are not elect.

The New Covenant is "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, for the promise is to you and to your children." It is not just elect in view here. It is all who confess Christ and live day to day following Him, including those who will one day lose faith and depart. The fact is there are non-elect in the COG while not in the COR. Why is it still grace? Because some covenant blessings do fall on hypocrites, but not salvation.

If you answered this objection in the other thread, my apologies.

[Edited on 1-26-2006 by non dignus]


----------



## VanVos (Jan 26, 2006)

Yes I believe I did answer that on the other thread. I stated that, based upon my interpretation of Heb 8 that the New Covenant only consists of elect persons. I sure your familiar with the argument. Maybe we could further discuss it on another thread sometime.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 26, 2006)

Yes, Reverend I would be delighted.

Dave


----------



## fitzage (Mar 28, 2006)

Whatever the tree is in Romans 11, it has some specific characteristics:

1. Some Jews were broken off.
2. Gentiles were grafted in.
3. Gentiles who have been grafted in can be broken off.

I can't think of anything in the Bible that fits these requirements aside from the Abrahamic Covenant. This makes perfect sense to a paedo-baptist, but I have yet to see a credo-baptist interpretation of this passage that can include these necessities from the passage, and still successfully maintain their position.


----------

