Is the olive tree in Romans 11 a covenantal tree?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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

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.

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!!) :up:
 
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
 
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.

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]

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!!!:lol:
 
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!

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

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.
 
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?
 
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.


...

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 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.


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
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.

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