Banner
Christ the Lord of the Covenant PDF Print E-mail
Theology - Welcome to the Reformed Faith
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Wednesday, 23 January 2008 04:40

The Word of God teaches us how we are to understand the relationship between the Old and New Testament, which relates to the relationship between the Jews and Gentiles. If we let go of certain preconceived ideas, that relationship is not difficult to grasp.

"For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree . . ." (Rom. 11:16-36).

The illustration Paul uses here is not a complex one. God has a cultivated olive tree, on which the Jews were natural branches. In the first century, many of them were cut out because of their unbelief, and wild olive branches (the Gentiles) were grafted in. The Gentiles were warned that the methods for tending the tree have not changed between Malachi and Romans, so the ingrafted branches must be characterized by faith and humility. If they fall into the sin of presumption, as many of the Jews did, the same thing could happen to them.

God had granted enormous privileges to the nation of Israel, which Paul had recounted earlier in Romans. First, Israel was a teacher. "An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law"(2:20). Second, the Jews had been entrusted with Scripture; they were the appointed custodians of the Scriptures. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God" (3:1-2). Third, they also had a range of gifts, their privileges were far-reaching. Of particular interest was their possession of the covenants and the promises. "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen" (9:4-5).

These privileges were enormous, but they were not limitless and unconditional. The carnal heart also wants covenant privileges to be automatic privileges, and they never are. If we follow Paul carefully here, we will see that the covenant with the Jews profited them if . . . The covenant reality is far more important than the covenant sign of that reality. To obey is better than sacrifice. "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision . . ." (2:25-29). The terrible judgment described in chapter 11, and the stern warning to the Gentiles there, is based on cumulative warnings that were gathering throughout the entire book. Our difficulty in getting this warning is based on a very natural, carnal tendency. It is not that Paul was murky -- it is that our hearts are murky.

The covenant people -- Jews in the Old Testament and Christians in the New -- were, and are, and will be until the Last Day, a mixed multitude. Throughout the Old Testament, there were Jews who were Jews and there were Jews who weren't. Throughout the aeon of the new covenant, the same thing is true -- there are Christians who are Christians and there are Christians who aren't. Why is this so hard to understand?On any other supposition, Paul's stern warning in Romans 11 would is senseless. God always has an Israel within Israel.

God remains true even if every man is a liar -- even if every covenant member is a liar. Here is the answer of God. However bad the conditions might be, God’s Word stays firm. "But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace" (11:4-5). Not all Israel is Israel. Not all the new Israel is the new Israel. We must distinguish between sons of the covenant, and sons indeed. "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called" (9:6-7).

Many Christians agree with this principle so long as we are talking about somebody else. They think this is a fine system for the Jews. Apply it to the Church and they go sideways. But -- and this is the central point, as well as an obvious one -- the engrafting of the Gentiles has not changed the nature of the tree. Paul's whole argument depends on the nature of the tree remaining constant. Branches are cut out in the old covenant, and they can just as easily be cut out in the new. We need to learn to take Paul's illustration at face value. When this olive tree illustration is taken at face value, a multitude of theological and doctrinal problems are solved. The exhortation is therefore to take it at face value.

Covenant membership is not decretal election. But neither is covenant membership a nullity. Understanding one's place in the covenant is essential to full-orbed discipleship. If a covenant member can apostatize, and many have, what use is infant baptism then? . . . much in every way. God's gifts and calling remain irrevocable, and this even applies to the Jews, two thousand years later. "Hath God cast away his people? God forbid . . ." (11:1-2a; cf. 11:11). God has promised that His covenant blessings will come to emcompass the whole world, and the conversion of the Jews as they return to their Messiah is an important part of this. That being the case, we should all be a lot more optimistic about the future of the olive tree than we actually are.



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 04:40
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
John Barry  Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:18 am
"...the ingrafted branches must be characterized by *faith* and *humility*."

Douglas, does this include the reprobate (or NECMs) that are grafted in to the olive tree?

Douglas Wilson  Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:23 am
John, the obligation to be characterized by faith and humility applies to them. But the ability to do so does not.
John Barry  Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:14 am
Douglas, if it is on the condition of faith that a branch is grafted into the olive tree, how does a reprobate or "NECM" come to be a branch in the olive tree in the first place, since, as you say, he is unable to exercise faith?
Douglas Wilson  Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:42 pm
John, it is not on the condition of faith. Faith is an obligation, not a precondition.
John Barry  Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:17 am
Douglas, I agree that faith is an obligation. All are commanded (required) to believe the gospel. But Paul also speaks of faith as a condition of salvation: "...if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom 10:9)

Jesus says, "Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required." But you say, "every one to whom *nothing* is given, of him will much be required."

That a just obligation is commensurate with ability is a fundamental principle of God's universe. Every one knows this to be true intuitively--including *you*. Your conviction of this truth is manifest in how you raised your children, how you love your wife, and how you treat your neighbor.

That you assert otherwise in theological discussion perplexes me.

Douglas Wilson  Thursday, January 24, 2008 2:16 am
John, did Isaac have an obligation to trust in God because he was circumcised? Do I have an obligation to be loyal to America just because I was born here, without my permission being sought? Should I send my mother flowers on Mother's Day, or will anybody's mother do, so long as I make the choice?
John Barry  Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:34 am
Douglas, No. Isaac's obligation to trust God begins when He *knows* God to be trustworthy.

If *you know* that it is right to be loyal to America just because you were born here, then you are obligated to be loyal. ("Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.")

I think you should send the flowers to *your* mother, or else you'll catch it from your dad. (And please mention to your mother that I suggested it).

Are your newly born twin grandchildren obligated to send their mother flowers this Mother's Day?

I say above that it is a universally understood fundamental principle that a just obligation is commensurate with ability. Strictly speakinig, a just obligation is commensurate with *knowledge*, and the implied *ability* to will (and act) in accordance with such knowledge.

John Barry  Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:52 am
In the parable of the talents in Matt 25, the one talent recipient, when called to give an account, says to the master, "*I knew* you to be a hard man...." The master, without addressing the truth or falsity of the servant's knowledge, replies, "*You knew* that I reap where I have not sowed.... Then *you ought* to have invested my money with the bankers...." (Emphasis added).
Ree  Friday, January 25, 2008 2:40 am
John,

I don't presume to speak for Pastor Wilson, and maybe this doesn't illustrate his point at all, but the analogy that comes to my mind in regard to your question is this. Does a drugged-out, meth-addicted mother have an obligation to protect her child? If the mother, willfully gets high, while enslaved to her drug habit, fails to keep her child from playing in traffic and getting killed by an oncoming car, is she absolved of her guilt because she was too out of it to know that her toddler was putting himself in danger?

Is that not similar to our sin blinding us to our obligation, while still rendering us guilty?
John Barry  Friday, January 25, 2008 3:37 am
Ree, Does the mother in your illustration *know* that getting high is wrong? If she doesn't, *ought* she to know this? And is it possible for her, by availing herself of all possible means, to *not* get high?
Ree  Friday, January 25, 2008 8:35 am
She at least ought to know, although she might be willfully self-deluded. In the same way, we all know (or ought to know) of our obligation to glorify God. And I would say that, because of her physical, spiritual, and emotional bondage to drugs, she is not able to not get high, unless someone were to come and rescue her from her bondage.
John Barry  Friday, January 25, 2008 10:20 am
If she ought to know, and doesn't, then I would say she is willfully ignorant, and has sinned.

If it is *impossible* for her to not get high, and *impossible* for her to do anything that might lead to her not getting high (i.e., crying out for help), then I would say she bears no guilt for getting high. But I have a hard time imagining this to be the case. Rather than being *unable* to not get high, I assume this hypothetical mother is *unwilling* to not get high.

Consider the "unwitting sins" for which a sacrifice is prescribed in Leviticus. Assuming there is real guilt before God for committing an "unwitting sin", to what does the guilt attach? Is the unwitting sinner guilty for not doing what is required? No, because he has no *knowledge* of the requirement. But he *is* guilty of not knowing what he ought to know. Again, this is willful ignorance, which I believe to be sin.

John Barry  Friday, January 25, 2008 10:46 am
In Acts 23, Paul is accused of "reviling the high priest". Is he guilty?

Paul doesn't think he is. His *ignorance* of the identity of the man he speaks to is his defense. He doesn't *know* he is the high priest. But he *does know* the law which says you shall not speak evil of a ruler of the people.

Because Paul doesn't know (and assuming he has no obligation to know), he does no wrong.

As soon as he knows who the man is, Paul acknowledges the law, and there is no record of further "reviling".

Again and again in the Scriptures we see God's fundamental principle that a just obligation is commensurate with knowledge (and implied ability) either taught, illustrated or assumed.

lewsta  Friday, January 25, 2008 7:04 pm
But Mr. Barry, the woman tangled with drugs MUST know of her obligation to care for and protect her children, and thus to abdicate that due to her usage of drugs MUST be to her account sin. Just so, we MUST know our obligation to glorify God. Our failure or refusal to do so, choosing instead things that do not, is chargeable to our account as sin, whether we recognise the train or no. Such things are written upon our hearts, being made in the image of our Creator. In Paul's case above, his ignorance of the position held by the man in question is not chargeable in the same way, being a detail of specific knowledge. In contrast, the illustrations above are universals. Great difference there.
John Barry  Saturday, January 26, 2008 1:09 am
lewsta, I agree with you. The woman, knowing her obligation and not fulfilling it, sins.

From Romans 1: "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened."

I am simply questioning Douglas's assertion above that "NECMs" are obligated where they have no ability; and his assertion in another post that snakes, who are helpless to be otherwise, when commanded to stop being snakes, are without excuse. Such obligations everyone knows intuitively to be unjust.

Ree  Saturday, January 26, 2008 1:42 am
Like us in our unregenerate state, the drug-addicted woman in my scenario is both unwilling and unable to forsake her sin.
John Barry  Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:21 am
Ree, the woman's guilt attaches to her unwillingness, not to her inability.

If it is true that in our unregenerate state we are unable to forsake our sin, then I don't believe God obligates us to forsake our sin until He *makes us able* to do so.

John Barry  Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:32 am
"God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able...."

Why does He not? Because He is *faithful*. He is *trustworthy*.

If, from time to time, I were to require my children to do that which was impossible for them to do, and punish them for their failure, do you think they would *trust* me?

Would a God who did this be any more trustworthy?