Same Tree | Chrestomathy

Written by Douglas Wilson

Tuesday, 07 June 2011 08:37

"The Gentiles were threatened with removal from the same tree the unbelieving Jews had been in. But if this were the tree of salvation, then the elect can lose their salvation -- which cannot be defended biblically. And if this is the tree of the covenant, then the point stands" (To a Thousand Generations, p. 36)

Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites

Last Updated on Tuesday, 07 June 2011 10:49

Comments

Only registered users can write comments!

Michael Bull - Shakin' the Tree

Tuesday, June 07, 2011 6:19 pm

This looks logical enough, but trees are a process of maturity, from seed to fruit. So is righteousness, and so is sin.

Israel was a trunk, a single genealogy stuck, stationary, in one plot of Land. Her history follows the feasts (see Bible Matrix, p. 189-191). In this structure, the coming of Christ brought the final harvest, Booths.

After Jesus' Day of Atonement (tasting the cup for potential poison, for every man) there was wine for every man, both Jew and Gentile. The Jew-Gentile God-fest came after this High Priestly Day. All nations could now be Booths, as predicted by Zechariah.

During the Restoration era, the tree trunk sprouted branches, and when the Christ came He was looking for fruit. By and large, all He found was an Adam hiding in leaves.

What does a good farmer do? He cuts off the fruitless branches and, in this case, grafts in some stronger, wild ones, just as Rahab and Ruth were grafted in to bring new life to a weakly, inbred, barren tree.

Why was the tree weak? Not because of obedience, but because of disobedience. The Jews became elitist instead of being a house of prayer. They should have been made strong as the nations came to them for Atonement and shelter (Booths). But they came to rely on the empire instead of God for their strength.

In Romans, Paul refers to the Feast of Booths. The fruitless were cut off. Ingrafting requires two cuts: one of the tree (Christ) and one of the new branch. This second cutting was repentance.

Under the Old Covenant, males could be grafted in by circumcision, by adherence to the Law. But it was not about branches. Worship was fleshly and central. It was all about the trunk, about Israel connected to the Land. Males became part of that tree trunk that was always destined to be cut for the sake of the nations.

But, as with a tree, the Covenant grew up, from earthly country to heavenly country. Adam was a singular trunk. Eve is multiplied branches (and I reckon we can also see this in Old Covenant "singular," stationary scrolls with wooden rollers and New Covenant, portable codices with many "leaves.") Repentance and baptism grafts us in as branches.

Circumcision had been able to graft Gentiles in as part of the "fleshly" trunk. That was no longer possible because the Covenant had changed. Even when Jews were grafted back in, they had to be repentant. This, too, is no longer possible as there are, Covenantally, no more Jews (being a Jew was a priestly office which was decommissioned in AD70.) If Gentiles (and, logically, there are no more Gentiles either) were cut off because of unbelief, such a cutting came after harvest time. They were cut off because of lack of fruit. We see Jesus, the gardener, pruning the Lamp-trees in Revelation 2-3, warning the pastors that those baby sins would grow to resemble the eighth church He was about to judge, Old Covenant Israel. Paul's context here is entirely first century. We can apply it now, through church discipline. We see an application of it in the Reformation, another harvest time.

So, under the Old Covenant, this tree was a promise of shelter and fruit. The stump was good, but as it turned out, not all the branches were. The New Covenant is not a trunk, it is a shelter, a Booth.

Covenant membership of infants is trunk stuff. Not only was it Adamic (males) but trunk stuff is over. We are into branch stuff, Eve, the history of a mature Covenant people post-Wedding Supper.

We have no business baptizing babies because they have not repented, they show no fruits of repentance, and they provide no shelter. The requirement for a New Covenant grafting in is repentance and faith. History has moved on, as trees tend to do. Salvation by faith has been constant, but the Old Covenant genealogical tree trunk has become a tree of salvation. The change in the requirements for membership, and in the Covenant sign, reflect this. Jesus can now have a branch in every neighborhood.

Are our babies left out in the cold? No. They shelter under the Covenant tree, "sanctified," set apart, until they can be grafted in.

Douglas Wilson

Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:07 pm

Michael, thanks very much for the point/counterpoint. Keep it coming.

Doug Sowers

Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:25 pm

Fasinating Michael

Michael Bull - Fontoclasm

Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:29 pm

No probs. We agree that our beautiful Bible is the rule so we're pulling rabbits out of the same hat. Just got to get em in the right order.

I'm hoping this will turn into a traveling debate across America and around the world. With limos and music video cinematography. ;)

Douglas L. Roorda

Wednesday, June 08, 2011 6:31 am

Mike,

Greetings in Christ!

Though I am one of your biggest fans, and would come to all your concerts if you were a rock star, I don’t believe that your views (insightful as they truly are!) are doing justice to the promise of God in Gen 17:7 to Abraham to be God to him and his descendants. One might say yabbut, Abraham’s descendants are now only those who come in by adult faith, but the chain from Gen 17:7 to Exodus 20:2 and 20:12 to Eph. 6:1-3 shows that (notwithstanding the changing of epochs) God’s promise to be God to the belivers’ children — in the same way that He is God to Abraham — still stands. Which means that our children presently, even as infants, possess and are possessed of God as their God. Thus they do things like “believe in Me [Jesus]” (Matt. 18:6) and leap for joy within the womb (”the baby in my womb leaped for joy” Lk. 1:44)

Come to think of it, Psalm 128:3 tells us that children aren’t trunky, but branchy - they are “olive shoots” (actually, ‘olive cuttings’ like in the Romans passage.) So no, covenant membership has always been branch stuff.

Blessings on your house, and may your wife be a fruitful vine and your children be like olive shoots around the table!

Doug Roorda

——Scripture quotations below——–

Genesis 17:7-9: “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said to Abraham: As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations”

Exodus 20:1, 12
“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. . . . Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.”

Eph. 6:1-3 “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 SO THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU MAY LIVE LONG ON THE EARTH.” [caps used in NASB to show scripture quotations]

Ps. 128:3 (ESV, because it gets the “shoots” translation right) “your children will be like olive shoots around your table”

T. Robinson

Wednesday, June 08, 2011 6:46 am

I'd go to a Michael Bull concert if Douglas Roorda were also playing. We're in need more pong to Mr. Bull's ping.

Brian J Alldredge

Wednesday, June 08, 2011 7:09 am

FYI, I am really enjoying the civilized back and forth on this issue in the comments. Coming from a church that ultimately split over covenant doctrines when I was very young, and facing a potential revival of these tensions (which could conceivably lead to similar results), it's nice to see more dialogue and discussion about it semi-realtime. I have read many books on both sides of the baptism debate, but actually seeing knowledgable people from both sides of the fence talk about it is invaluable to me.

Michael Bull - More Cowbell

Wednesday, June 08, 2011 4:53 pm

Doug R - we’ve covered this elsewhere - and as another commenter here wisely wrote, a Christian baby is not a baby Christian.

Sure, kids are branchy, but the Bible works in fractals. The big picture is sons of God, not sons of men. The pictures are good, but they are pictures.

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Father
Sister Heather
Avuncular
Femina

Nate
Shadow Shroud
Nephew
Amoretti

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Blogroll

Pastors Blogroll