Is the olive tree in Romans 11 a covenantal tree?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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]
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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]
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
He has kindled fire on it,
And its branches are worthless.

NKJV
Jer 11:16 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.

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]
 
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]
 
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]
 
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."

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?


:amen:
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
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]

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.
 
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."

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]

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

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.

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]
 
(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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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]
 
Originally posted by VanVos


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.
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. Rather, it is a promise that God's election of grace does not fail and includes both Jew and Gentile according to His sovereign choice. No group should be haughty toward another, simply because God is the One who sovereignly chooses whom He will save in the flow of redemptive history. (Fred Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone, 104-105)
Later, Malone rightly notes,

Using the metaphors of John 15 and Romans 11 to redefine clearer New Covenant prophecies and definitions and thereby to create a New Covenant that has curses and real members who do not possess all the realized blessings of the New Covenant is erroneous hermeneutics and poor exegesis. As Dan McCartney has said, "Literal passages are more determinative than symbolic ones." It is this overlooking of clearer didactic passages, which clearly define the New Covenant, by giving preference to symbolic ones or passages dealing with false profession and haughty spirits that is the hermeneutical error of some paedobaptists. (106)

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by VanVos]

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.
 
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.
 
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"!
 
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]
 
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
 
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]
 
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]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top