The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized? #7

I now continue the series on millennialism by picking up at verse 13 of Romans chapter 11.

13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?

Verses 12 & 15 are practically identical in their intent. But between those two, Paul describes his ministry as one “to the gentiles” in order that he may “save some of the Jews”.

As for the puzzling illustration of dough in verse 16, some commentators see the relationship between the “firstfruits” and the lump to be symbolic of the relationship of God to Israel as an Old Covenant people that, because of their covenantal relationship the nation is holy because God is holy. The sense in which I think this may be true is that, holiness is transferred to the nation as a whole in that they have a “set-apartness” in regards to other nations; God did not chose Hammurabi of Ishtar and make a nation of his seed, not that they are, in this age and to a man, righteous before God on account of the imputation of Christ’s merit, but that they remain the historical, temporal people of God—even if their relation to God is now characterized by His wrath toward a disobedient and contrary people, some sort of relationship exists nonetheless, as to the future of this relationship there remains great debate. Unlike the Church, the nation of Israel does not enjoy the privilege of having God’s Fatherly love for the Son imputed to every individual in the group, but we know that Paul later goes on to say that, “..in this way, all Israel will be saved.’, which is to say, through partial hardening and jealousy they (the branches that were broken off) will be saved, yet, like the eschatology of the nation, the exact scope of this salvation within the group also remains immersed in debate. As one man once said, “the best interpretation of a prophetic event is its fulfillment.”

16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."

Verses 16b-22 I believe are some of the most helpful in gathering insight for understanding the relationship between Israel and the Church. In verse 16 Paul sets up the pruning and grafting metaphor. The Root is obviously Christ, the natural branches are the Jews and the wild branches are gentiles. In his commentary on Romans 11:16, Calvin had this to say,

“The first-fruits which were offered sanctified the whole lump, in like manner the goodness of the juice diffuses itself from the root to the branches; and posterity hold the same connection with their parents from whom they proceed as the lump has with the first-fruits, and the branches with the tree. It is not then a strange thing that the Jews were sanctified in their father. There is here no difficulty if you understand by holiness the spiritual nobility of the nation, and that indeed not belonging to nature, but what proceeded from the covenant.”

The picture here is graphic and quite easily understood. There is an attachment of essence that is described between the root and its branches; at the very least, the characteristic of holiness is transferred from the root into the branches, much like the root of a tree transfers the necessary elements of life to its branches. But some of the branches were broken off so we might conclude, by extension of the metaphor, that the holiness transferred from the root to the branches does not prevent the pruning of certain branches. Perhaps it does, however, necessitate their future grafting back in. The first element of the metaphor is the root, the second is the natural branches, and the third is the wild branches. Notice that these branches, alien to the nature of the olive tree, though we may infer that the fact that they are both olive branches indicates the similarity between all of God’s human creatures, whether they be Jews or gentiles, are not grafted into the place of the natural braches (in effect replacing them, because they are soon to return) nor are the wild branches used to start a different tree in the same garden, but they are grafted in among the other branches, so as to “share in the nourishing root of the olive tree”. We could say that the nourishment Paul has in mind here is that spoken of in Eph. 2:11-22, that the wild branches now enjoy all the benefits from which they were previously alienated, the commonwealth of Israel, the covenant of promises, and hope in the world. Paul often reminds his readers that they, as believers, are a part of the greater whole; we are members of a body and so on. Not that individuality is antithetical to Pauline soteriology, but the cooperate nature of God’s dealings with a covenant people is sometimes over shadowed in modern American individualism. He in effect said in verses 13-15, “…do not forget that you all a part of a bigger picture.” In the great wisdom bestowed on Paul by the Spirit, he realizes that when an oppressed people are finally removed from under the thumb of their oppressor, arrogance and pride seek an opportunity to pounce on the weak; they crouch at the door awaiting an occasion to infect lives with sin. So he is forthright with a condemnation of the pride that might befall gentile Christians as they consider their newly inclusive position with regard to God’s Kingdom.

20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.

In verse 20b Paul in effect reminds the believing gentiles that fear, rather than pride is the correct response for their inclusion; just as with Abraham and his physical nation, they had no occasion for pride because, among all the nations they were the least, but it was right that they should fear lest the God of all patience rescind His grace in order to display His justice. Likewise, we gentiles should fear our sin and disobedience lest the God who included us let His gracious mercy run dry and replace it with the flood of His justice, which is at all times conceived and distributed in righteousness.

As Paul confirms in verses 19-20a, the natural branches were pruned to make room for the wild branches, but that is only one end of the means of this pruning; coupled with the jealousy that will be caused by the grafting in of the wild branches, the grafting in of the wild branches is a means to the final (final in the context of this metaphor and the specific eschatological events it illustrates) end of the re-grafting of the natural branches, which consequently is a means to the greater blessing of the world. In other words, Paul has in mind a sequence of causal effects: the nation chosen to bless the world through the Messiah, the nation’s rejection of that Messiah, God’s rejection of that nation, God’s acceptance of other nations, the jealousy of that chosen nation, the repentance of that chosen nation, God’s acceptance of their repentance, and the blessing of the whole world as a result of God’s acceptance of their repentance. Paul goes on to reiterate the point that the natural branches were not just broken off just to make room for the grafting in of the wild branches; they did not stumble just so that they might fall, they were broken off because of their unbelief. So too would the wild branches be broken off if they persisted in unbelief.

There will probably be one more post regarding chapter 11, and then I plan to summarize the three views presented in the title of this series and list proponents of each.

The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized? #6

Below is the beginning of my comments on Romans 11. I have decided to split this into two parts.

Romans 11

1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." 4 But what is God’s reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

And after such a scathing discourse, Paul anticipates the most natural question, “Well then, has God rejected His people?” This is the expected question, because the disciples and all those who believed Christ were astonished that the Jews as a whole, did not believe. And in the strongest of terms, similar to those words with which he had spoken to the Galatians, NO, God has not rejected them! But we must ascertain what it means that He has not rejected them, that they are still, in some way under His consideration. Paul began to address this issue by noting that he, an Israelite, had not been rejected by God for he (even once disobedient and contrary—having persecuted Christ) was then preaching the very gospel he once despised, that same gospel that was preached unto Abraham and Elijah, the gospel of the righteousness of faith, and in that way, Israelites are not rejected when God saves them and they believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.

To answer the question, has God rejected His people because many of them do not believe, and He did not restore the kingdom as they had expected, but rather, the gospel is now also going to the gentiles, Paul does not refer his hypothetical objector to the promise of land to Abraham and the possibility that that promise might be fulfilled in a literal way in the future, but instead, Paul appeals to the cry of Elijah against Israel when he thought God had forsaken His people because he thought he was alone, the child of Abraham at the time. But in order for God to show Elijah back then and Paul, in order to show the believing Jews in his day, reminds us that God has kept a remnant for Himself; a people who are characterized by obedience instead of disobedience; a transformed people, not a people conformed to the world. In other words, Paul appeals to Elijah when believing Jews question whether or not God has rejected their people, he says, Elijah thought the same thing, but God assured him that He had set aside a number of people for His Kingdom and that number will never, in any age, dwindle to zero, so in essence, when the Jews in his day ask if God has rejected His people, Paul answers, “No, I am an Israelite and I believe; God has kept for Himself a number of men who have not bowed the knee to Caesar. It is by grace that you are saved, and if by grace, then no longer by circumcision.”

7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day." 9 And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; 10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever." 11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

The question Paul anticipates after this is quite similar to the question he asks in verse 11, but different in that it is a consequence of his answer to the question in verse 1. Israel did not obtain son-ship and retain a place in the Kingdom by fulfilling the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant, and Paul answers his own question in verse 7 by declaring Israel’s failure. They sought after God in the sense that they had been brought as a nation into covenant relationship with God, through Moses, and in all the ceremonial, civil and moral Laws of that covenant, they rehearsed these things, ad infinitum. Nevertheless, their hearts were far from Him and their burnt offerings were a stench in God’s nostrils because they were a disobedient and contrary people. And obviously, their ritualistic practice of these things did not protect them as a whole from unbelief; in fact, God used some of their own religiosity and piety to harden them for the purpose of bringing the gentiles into the Kingdom through promise and not through circumcision, which was a very mysterious thing to the Jews that eschatological idea came from the mouths of the Old Testament prophets. In the later part of verse 7, Paul reflects on the judgment of the unbelieving nation as he replaces the term, remnant with the term elect. As he continues, Paul draws on the judgment of Is. 29:10 with Deut. 29:4 also in mind. Isaiah 29: “10 For the LORD has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes (the prophets), and covered your heads (the seers).” And in Deut. 29: 4 “But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.” The Holy Spirit seems to have brought these two verses to Paul’s mind as he considers Israel’s unbelief. After quoting David, Paul reasons through the reality of the inclusion of the gentiles. He concludes, probably based on his quotation of Moses in verse 19 back in chapter 10, that God had not simply ordained that the Jews would fall, just for the sake of falling, but their fall had a greater purpose…to bring in the gentiles (thus fulfilling the mystery) and as a consequence of that, the Jews would be made jealous and “full inclusion” would result, which in Paul’s statement at the end of verse 12 indicates that their inclusion will produce revival among the nations.

I will try to finish the rest of Romans 11 and post it soon; I'm sure there are multitudes of people awaiting my comments with abated breath.

The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized? #5

I continue my study of millennialism by moving forward through Romans 10.

Romans 10

1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Paul is speaking about the Jews in his day that did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. Like the ones in that day to whom, when they cry out “Lord, Lord, but we cast out demons in your name…” Christ will say, “…I never knew you.” it is also said about those Jews that they were eager for God, but they knew not what they were doing, or for whom they were to be fervent. And it is all the more convicting that the Jews, to whom the Law and the prophets were given, did not pursue God in passionate knowledge. In general the Jews did not pursue righteousness by faith but by works. Verses 3 & 4 are so clearly a parallel to verses 31 & 32 of the previous chapter, and Paul here in chapter 10, just a few verses later said that they did so being ignorant of God’s righteousness, which is the righteousness of Christ imputed on the believer, thus they tried, as all foolish men in all ages, to put on their own righteousness to go before the throne of God, and that righteousness (even in the most pious of degrees) is as a filthy rag. For the believer, Jesus the Christ obeyed the Law of God in the place of all those who submit to God’s righteousness, yes, for everyone who believes.

5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

In verses 4 &5 Paul contrasts two different types of righteousness, the righteousness of Christ in verse 4 that is the end of the Law and the righteousness that is “based on the Law”. This later type of righteousness is described as the righteousness that is pursued by the person who attempts to live by the commandments. This is not the righteousness that is by faith, a faith in Christ who actually did pursue and attain righteousness by obedience to the Law. It is futile for one to attempt to obey the Law of God for righteousness because we know that James tells us in chapter 2:10, that if we break just one point of the Law we are guilty of breaking the entire Law; to offend God at even the most hidden and smallest part, regarding our guilt, is to affront His holiness with the most offensive evil deed, thus to endeavor is unreasonable. The righteousness of faith admits that we cannot call Christ down to saved us because we have obeyed and He is obliged to serve us as Savior, nor is our righteousness so pure that it warrants the resurrection of Christ’s body. No, it was His own righteous works; He did what Adam could not do so as to fulfill the obligations of the covenant and guarantee His own resurrection. Those who have the righteousness of faith are those who confess the “word of faith” with their mouths and truly believe that it is God who raised Christ and not our faithfulness. Verses 5-9 are intended to show the difference between the righteousness of faith and the empty self-righteousness of religious hypocrite. Verse 10 contains several elements: heart belief, justification, confession, and salvation. All of those who are justified before God, truly have the faith of righteousness in Christ, and it is their confession; they say that thy believe it, and it is them that are saved from the wrath of God. And as an echo of what was said in 9:32, “and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."”, Paul here quotes again, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” And Paul places the emphasis on the “whoever” and the “everyone” in verse 11 by noting the lack of distinction that the physical Jews have regarding those who will be saved. Paul fails to mention here a different, future hope for the physical Jew (namely a pre-millennial, earthly reestablishment of the glory of the exclusively Jewish kingdom) but he points out that the salvation that comes from Christ is the salvation for Jew and gentile alike, the same righteousness of faith is the one that saves whoever calls on the name of the Lord, Jew or gentile.

14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. 18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for "Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." 19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, "I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry." 20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me." 21 But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

With all that said, Paul goes into a description of the means that God has ordained to accomplish Hi intended end…saving his people. So Paul concludes that the righteousness of faith is granted through hearing the Word of God preached by men who are sent like the “runners” bearing good news from the front lines of the battle, so that persons can believe and call out the name of Christ. But he is quick to add that the preaching, though it is a necessary cause, is not a sufficient cause for one to believe, because reality persuades him to point out the fact that everyone who hears the Word of the Lord preached does not obey the gospel command to repent and believe. It is faith, which in Paul’s theology is a gift from God, that comes along side the preached Word to cause belief in the person receiving the Word with his physical ears so that he hears it with the ears of his heart. And this leads to the rhetorical question Paul poses in verse 18. The answer is assumed, of course Israel has heard the gospel with their physical ears and they have seen it illustrated in all their cultic rituals, from the sacrifices to the Sabbaths, the coming Christ was preached to them all the while. As the gospel writer recalls, in Luke 24:27, Christ is in the Old Testament scriptures and they concern Him. And Paul continues with another question in verse 19 noting how ridiculous it is that Israel would not understand the presentation of Christ in the Old Covenant, thus he quotes God’s description of the people as disobedient and contrary. Moses declared a mysterious thing when he spoke of God’s plan to make the nation jealous and angry by using a “foolish nation”. He goes on to describe just how God would do this by quoting Isaiah who boldly declares that He will be found by a people who were not blessed with the covenantal stipulations of Moses, by those who did not receive His Law on tablets. It might even be said that, “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls”—God says, “I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me."

I hope to continue soon with an exposition of Romans 11, at least in part.

The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized? #4

We will begin this post with the quotation of Romans 9:14-24, where we left off in the last post.

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

In verses 14-18, in light of the proclamation of God’s sovereign choices, Paul decided to answer the obvious objection, “if God chooses whom to bless even before one is born; if God chooses to bless regardless of human effort, then how can He rightly judge those who would curse Him in unbelief if He has not chosen to bless them in the first place?”, and this answer is couched on the example of God’s dealings with Pharaoh through Moses. So we can say with the confidence of scripture that, the reason one is blessed and one has been shown mercy is finally determined only by the mercy of God and His right over His creation to do that which ultimately pleases Him and by the words of the Apostle, we may go as far as to say that, one day, somehow (certainly outside of the imperfect understanding of finite creatures) through His patience, God will make known the riches of His glory for those on whom He has chosen to pour out His mercy, and through His wrath He will make known His power.

25 As indeed he says in Hosea,"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"26 "And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'”

It is not insignificant that Paul at this point, supports his understanding of the reality that gentiles were then included and some of the Jews would not be saved by quoting the passage in Hosea concerning gentiles as he mentioned in verse 24. And to contrast this inclusiveness, Paul grants his hypothetical objectors another reason for the unbelief of Israel by the words of Isaiah:

27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay." 29 And as Isaiah predicted, "If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah." 30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

Even though God fulfilled His promise to Abraham to bless him with offspring whose number challenges the stars, only a remnant of them will be saved. Paul knows that if God had not preserved a portion of the people to remain, then the entire nation would have fallen into untold depravity and soon been utterly destroyed. I believe that verse 30 & 31 are also often read as a question, one following the question Paul poses for his objector, but verse 30 & 31 are not interrogatives but they are an answer to hypothetical interrogatives that would naturally arise given the content of Paul’s discourse. So, to the question posed by the Jewish skeptic, “well if God, as you say, has keep the covenantal promises even though the majority among the Jews is unbelief, yet God is just because it His good pleasure as to those who receives His mercy then, we must say, ‘That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.’” But why must we say this? The gentiles never pursued the righteousness through the practice of the rituals of the Old Covenant, but they pursued righteousness as Abraham did, by faith. Instead of pursuing a righteousness that is by faith, Israel pursued a law intended to lead them to righteousness, but on the whole they did not gain it, and that, because of their lack of faith; they were trying to attain it in their own strength. They were so dependant upon the ritualistic nature of their typological religion (circumcision, land, Sabbaths, feasts, and new moons) and their mad-made “new” laws (strange customs that were created to avoid the spirit of the Sabbath rest, for instance) and their ability to keep them that they missed the Object to which the precious symbols that they had been given pointed them…the coming Christ. The shame of stumbling clearly belonged to those unbelieving Jews, but certainly and eventually, even some of them would be saved, for we were all once children of wrath, just as they were. And even the former shame of unbelief is placed on Christ on the cross as He stayed hammered to it to receive our just punishment so that we can now and forever receive His just reward. To God be the glory, forever and ever, Amen!

The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized? #3

As we continue the discussion of millennialism, I want to begin commenting on Romans 9-11. To do this, I want to get a running start from the context of the end of Romans 8 and it will likely take several posts to conclude. So here is Roman 8:31-39.

31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered."

37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

In the midst of writing his discourse on the faithfulness of God to maintain our adoption as sons, it is as if Paul steps back and says, “wait a minute, what about those who are my brothers in the flesh who have not gained the promise because they lack faith? Someone is sure to raise an objection to what I’m saying because so many Jews have not believed and yet so many gentiles, Greeks no less, have believed our report! How shall I respond to that; why is it that they are separated from the love of Christ?”

It is as though the “us” Paul is considering in the passage suddenly strikes him as being a group that probably should be a majority of ethnic Jews since the focus of the Object of faith is a Jew who fulfilled Jewish promises that were made in the midst of a Jewish religious system and in that day, were proclaimed primarily by Jewish Apostles and first to the Jewish people group, but he realizes that many of his own Jewish brothers and sisters do not believe in the Messiah prophesied in their own scriptures, so perhaps thoughts such as these, and the Holy Spirit lead Paul to write the words in Romans 9 and following.

Romans 9

1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

I think he preempts the objector who question would question whether Paul had forsaken his brothers in the flesh, he has “gone outside the camp” and become the apostle to the gentile nations, and rightly so given the structure of the great commission of our Lord. Surely Christ had not meant that it was only to the Jews in all the nations to which the gospel was to be preached. Paul had understood by now that Christ’s descent, life, death, resurrection, and ascension were not simply to fulfill all righteousness and showing Himself the end of all the object lessons of the Old Covenant cultic practices, no, He also came to bring in the gentile nations, as promised in Hosea, making them part of His body as well.

But, how is it that Paul can go so quickly from the victorious proclamations of verses 37-39 in chapter 8 to, “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.”? No doubt, it is his meditations on the absence of belief in some of the synagogues, and the paradox created by the fact that God chose a nation in Abraham to bless the world finally in Christ, only to have many of those in the nation remain in unbelief after the appearing of the person for whom they were supposed to be looking. In the back of his mind, Paul must also have considered how he too was once an unbelieving Jew, and had even persecuted the Christ who eventually knocked him off his horse on the road to Damascus. So, even he at one time, as studious and academic a Jew as one could be, had denied the fulfillment of rightly practiced Old Testament Judaism in the coming of Christ Jesus; even he, missed the significance of Jesus being the Archetype and the Substance of the Old Testament types and shadows. With as full an understanding of justification and substitutionary atonement that anyone had at the time, Paul speaks in the most dramatic language possible by wishing himself cursed for the sake of all the Jews and for their belief, just to give weight to the sincerity of his love for his fleshly brothers and sisters. Paul continues by making the point that God had already blessed the people by using them as the nation which He had adopted for the purpose of distributing the illustration of His character through the Law, making the covenantal promises, and sending the Christ. All other things aside, they were a people used of God. His method of argumentation he is not dissimilar to the one who, before he critics, mentions the common ground he has with his opponent.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

And with verse 6 Paul begins to answer the assumed objection by assuring his readers that the Word of God has not failed. One would expect him to answer quite differently if Paul had had the modern day pre-millennial doctrine in the back of his mind. Perhaps he would have answered like this instead, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. After the glorious appearing of our Lord, Jesus Christ, He will establish His Kingdom in Jerusalem, and sitting on David’s throne, He will give the land to His chosen people, Israel, for Abraham’s sake.” But this is not what Paul said. Instead, as an answer to these questions, “what about the Jews, the land was promised to them and why do they not all believe and why do they seem cut off from the love of Christ?”, Paul provides several examples of how Israel’s consideration has always been one of promise. The promise God made to Abraham, that he would have offspring numbered as the stars in heaven and the grains of sand by the sea, was a statement of the future. Just as we think of God having chosen us from the foundations of the world (Eph. 1:4) He proclaims the future to Abraham as though it had, in His mind, already occurred, so Abraham was to know that, when this did happen it was certainly not of his doing, and history has quite plainly proven that his attempt to procure God’s promise by his own hands has manifested social disaster. Thus the examples Paul chose to use, Sarah, Rebekah and that of Jacob and Esau…by them it is sufficiently shown that God is a God of promises, and those promises are conditioned only upon His good and holy desire to have them fulfilled. At this point, someone may be inclined to say that this passage refers only to God’s sovereign dealing over nations, and the mention of the two different children of Abraham and the mention of Jacob and Esau is Paul’s way of illustrating the tragedies that are consequences of God’s people not pursuing Him in His way. No one thinks that God’s promises have failed because Ishmael and his sons and Esau and his sons have not inherited God’s promise, and that would have to be the expectation if this passage were exclusively about nations. Thus, I think that is a peculiar conclusion at which to arrive, especially considering verses 11 and 12, “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue”. And when you see that the opposite book end of this set of verses is in verse 33 where Paul’s use of the term, “elect” is not just that of the physical nation chosen by God, but it is the children of His spiritual election. It is not the return to the physical land and temple and to the cultic Old Covenant rituals that distresses Paul so, no, it is that they are “separated from the love of Christ” because they do not believe, thus this passage (and as it will also be proven in the context that follows) is not referring exclusively to the physical nation. So when Paul say, “6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” he is in effect, saying, “not all who are part of physical Israel are a part of spiritual Israel”, therefore he cannot be saying, “it is not the sons of Esau who are part of the nation of Israel, but only the sons of Jacob are a part of the nation of Israel”. Likewise, the “children of the flesh” do not only refer to the children of Ishmael and Esau, and the children of promise are not the physical children of Isaac and Jacob only.

I will break here and continue the discussion of Romans 9 in later posts.

2008 Payton Vegetable Garden

Below are some photos of our garden.

Is Correct Grammar Necessary for Communication to be Efficient?

In the English language there is a set of absolutes that apply to the grammatical structure of language. We commonly try to teach our children to write with correct grammar, and to use the language accurately in their speech. But have you ever wondered why? Why really bother to correct them on a daily basis when the speak incorrectly? As Christian parents there are so many other things we should feel a need to correct, so many other instances when the Law of God should be presented to our children, so why bother to clutter their minds with another, man-made set of laws; why not just allow their teachers to present the right and wrong way to write and speak, and then leave it at that; why "disciple" our children in the way of English language when we have the infinitely more important task of discipling them in the way of the Kingdom?

One answer to this question is, because correct grammar is an integral part of efficient communication. And ntoe here taht wehn I say "garmamr" I am inculding the tsak of splelnig correctly as well. So if my premise is correct, that the primary goal of language is efficient communication, then doesn't correct grammar become a necessary means to that end? In answering this question, I think there are two challenges to consider. One, the trans-linguistic nature relationships today and two, the trans-cultural nature of relationships.

The Trans-Linguistic Nature of Relationships

The world is more and more like a village. In the attempt to communicate (for business or pleasure) the possibility is likely that you will encounter, as you are speaking in your native language, someone speaking in a language that is second to their native tongue.

We are experiencing more homogenization of culture, race and even language, than I believe has been experienced by any previous culture since Babel. Don't get me wrong, I don't see anything inherently sinful in the effort to communicate by building these types of bridges, so don't think that I am trying to compare these efforts to the efforts made by those God judged prior to the confusion at the tower of Babel. Just as language has been, and will remain, fluid over time, it is also, now, increasingly fluid from one language to another as one language adopts and applies a word whose transliteration is to difficult for common usage, and with the onset of the global electronic nature of economy, even the adoption of product names (which use words from the source language) from languages of a different family. For instance, words that transition from Asian to Latin based languages.

The Trans-Cultural Nature of Relationships

If the end is, to efficiently communicate the content of the words being spoken and their idea, then is it actually being accomplished when a person is constantly concerned with using correct English grammar in a context where the application of such a concern in that aspect of audible communication is perceived as arrogant and condescending? What we have is a conflict of competing means. The conclusion must be that, while correctly spoken grammar is a means to the end of efficient communication, it is not a "necessary means", nor is it a "sufficient means".

The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized? #2

In an attempt to come to a greater knowledge of God's intentions regarding the remnant of Israel, the Church and their differences and similarities, with the ultimate goal of taking more pleasure in the God of my soul; the God of all creation, I am going to (with the help of those who have gone before me) try to exegete the passages I find most pertinent to this issue. The first step in this is to post the 9th through the 11th chapters of Paul's letter to the Romans. For all those intent on following this discussion, I suggest reading the entire 3 chapters in one sitting as though you were reading a letter written to a group of which you are a part, in fact, in order to really get the proper and complete context, try sitting and reading the entire letter to the Romans at one time. I believe it can be beneficial in discovering Paul's intention in the specific chapters cited below.

Romans 9

1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"26 "And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"

27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay." 29 And as Isaiah predicted,

"If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah."

30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,

"Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

Romans 10

1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for "Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world."

19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, "I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry."

20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me."

21 But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

Romans 11

1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." 4 But what is God’s reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written,

“God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day."

9 And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; 10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever."

11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? 16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

"The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; 27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" 35 "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?"

36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

My comments will follow.

The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized?

Below is a quote from Sam Storms. He is describing Dispensational Premillennialism.

"To be a Premillennialist of any sort, you must believe that physical death and the curse on the natural creation will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s return. You must believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ. You must believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return. To be a Premillennialist, you must believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to Christ’s return and that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to Christ’s return."

And I would add, that to be a premillennialist you must believe that all the Old Testament prophesies of a future millennial temple must be physical, and that it must be erected in physical Jerusalem prior to the renewal of the New Heavens and Earth, and that all the Old Covenant ceremonial laws (sacrifices, feasts, sabbaths, and circumcision) will all be observed, and in fact, one in that age must become a physical Jew prior to their justification by God for salvation, just as they had to under the Old Covenant.

Though our hermeneutical presuppositions (and all of us must admit that we are forced to come to the scriptures with some assumptions) are the architecture by which we understand the Word in an organized and systematic fashion, Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, or millennialism is a conclusive detail that points back to the way we interpret scripture.

One more clarification on the definition of "A"-millennialism. It cannot be assumed that Premillennialists know that "Amillenialists" do believe in a millennialism, even though the term connotes that we believe in NO millennium, this is not true. It would be better understood as Anthony Hoekema and others have put it, as realised millenialism, with an emphasis on the "already" and the "not yet". That Christ inaugurated the Kingdom at His first coming and He will consummate it at His second; so I can say that the Kingdom of God/Heaven began to intrude upon His creation at Christ's birth and will be ultimately and finally realized when Christ returns in all His glory.

More Pics - The Mustang

Here are a few pics of a Mustang I know my mom will like...she had one much like it when she first graduated high school.

The Anthropology of Faith

What is faith?

Faith is a bit like falling down. One way to look at it is to see that it is more about not doing something than it is about doing something. What I mean is, faith is our own faith, but only because God has given it to us as a gift, so in that way it is not to our credit and this is the point of the description I am about to present.

The Human Point of View

Imagine you are standing on what you perceive as being level ground; you are trusting in your legs to hold you up, perpendicular to the ground. Imagine yourself making the decision to let your body fall to the floor freely, relying on your legs no more to hold you up, perpendicular to the floor, instead, you allow the force of gravity to relieve your legs of the duty of holding yourself in what you perceive is an upright position...this is like faith, trusting in something (or someone specifically) other than yourself to both establish and maintain your position of uprightness.

Christ's Point of View

Imagine you in your original position, from this, God's view, you see yourself as being horizontal, dead as it were. The point at which you considered yourself as giving over to the force of gravity to pull you down to the floor (from your perspective) was actually the act of God, the Spirit (as the "Force of Gravity") pulling you up to a vertical position; a position of uprightness. This is a bit like the way faith works from God's perspective.

Like all analogies, they are imperfect in describing the subject, but are only intended to point to them. The element left out s the fact that God changes your heart and thus your desires are necessarily changed to want to fall to the floor by giving up on your own ability to maintain your supposed uprightness.

Pics from Boone & Blowing Rock

Jeffrey & Spencer outside the Custom furniture showroom and shop.











Church in downtown Boone.




















Spencer & Jeffrey in
the park in Blowing Rock.

Melissa & Jeffrey in the park.

On the road back home.

One Day, Even Our Sinful Intelligence Will Be Glorified

No one "camp" or "group's"theology is perfect because those camps and groups are made up of persons whose sinful shadows remain in pursuit of their substance which is in Christ. And no regenerated person claims that they have such a complete knowledge of the divinely revealed truth presented to us in the canon of Scripture. So we creatures of God stumble along, confident in the areas where grace has given us light, and with our hands out in front of us feeling for familiar objects that might be scattered in a room where the Spirit has not yet decided to break through our blindness and deafness to enlighten our souls to those hidden truths.

When we consider the resurrection of our bodies, to be united with our redeemed souls, we so often consider the mending of our physical brokenness to the fault of ignoring the fact that our minds and mental brokenness will also, one day, be mended...for it too is most certainly broken in this age, but in the age to come, we will have the capacity to learn without the hindrance of our personal sinfulness and without the inherited brokenness caused by sin.

1 Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."

Blowing Rock

I've been on a recent hiatus. My family and I spent a few days in the mountainous paradise of north-western North Carolina...Blowing Rock and Boone, hence the absence of posts or comments in recent days. Photos and commentary are forthcoming.

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #5

Because my response to Jim's last comment on the previous post turned out to be so long, I have decided to post it as a separate article.

Jim said,

“Again, ethnic/national Israel was a predominantly unbelieving type and never was the object of our Lord's plan of redemption.”

I assume that you are saying that unbelieving Israel was a “type” of “the Israel of God” in the NC.

In what way does CT deny that “unbelieving Israel” was a type?

If there is no “identity” between Israel and the Church, then who is the Israel of God in Gal. 6:16?

Describe the logical process that takes a person from a “failure to recognize such” to CT?

You claim that paedo-baptism is essential to CT, that CT cannot actually be held if credo-baptism is also held. How does one’s adherence to credo-baptism logically prevent him from believing that, God the Father covenanted with God the Son before time to gift Him with a bride (the body of the elect) after He purchased them with His blood (Covenant of Redemption), because Adam would break the Covenant of Works (or “deal” to use Reisinger’s word) God made with him, thus plunging his race into sin; Christ, among other things, obeyed that covenant (thus the second Adam references) and the promise of the Covenant of Redemption is extended into and expounded by the progress of redemptive history by all the temporal covenants we find recorded in scripture (Covenant of Grace)? The identity CT professes between “Israel and the Church” is that rightly described as the identity of all saints transdispensationally, so the Israel of God in Gal. 6:16 is the same as the body of elect individuals from all time.

You call RBCTs “leaky” simply because they don’t believe that physical baptism is the sign of the NC as circumcision was the sign of the OC, but I think that ignores nearly half the recent history of CT, i.e. the originators and professors of the 1689. If the inconsistency you so poetically accuse RBs (myself included) of is just that the WCF is paedo-baptist then, I’m not convinced that your argument is air tight.

I have downloaded something by Zaspel, Reisinger, Wells, and Tony Warren, but I haven’t had a chance to read them. I plan on responding to those and the quotes at the end of my last post at the same time.

I think it is pretty clear that Hebrews 7:12 is not referring to a replacement of one Law with another Law. I don’t think my intention has been to “defend Waldron/Barcelous, because I’m sure they are capable of doing that themselves…I have quoted them to try to back up points I was trying to make.

Now to address the Piper quotes:

p.215 “If someone had said to Jesus the words, "Love unites; doctrine divides," I think Jesus would have looked deep into that person's soul and said, "True doctrine is the root of love. Therefore, WHOEVER OPPOSES IT, DESTROYS THE ROOT OF UNITY."

This quote could be pointed toward you as well, Jim.

p. 217 “When Jesus demanded that we love our enemies by contrasting this with the interpretation that said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy", he was lovingly showing us that correcting false interpretations of the Bible is one crucial way to love our enemy.”

I may have terribly misunderstood your mention of this quote, but are you saying that Piper is actually applying this to an intramural debate between Christian brothers; do you think of yourself as loving your enemy when you are pointing out what you claim to be errant doctrine in my affirmations?

p. 218 “In fact, we live in a time when emotional offense, or woundedness, often becomes a criterion for deciding if love has been shown. A person can be genuinely loved and feel hurt or offended or angered or retaliatory or numb without in any way diminishing the beauty and value of the act of love that hurt them. This truth is shown by the way Jesus lived his life. He loved in a way that was often not felt as love. No one I have ever known in person or in history was as blunt as Jesus in the way he dealt with people. He [did] not fret over the possibile criticism that he [was] not being careful enough to distinguish real enemies from annoying brothers.”

First of all, you ain’t Jesus, brother. Second, I never said your statements were unloving, just “puffed up” and contained in an undue quarrelsome tone. Third, if what I have pointed out in your comments is not arrogant, then what in your mind would qualify as being such?

At least at this time, neither one of us is willing to change our minds about the nature of Replacement Theology and the consistency or inconsistency of credo-baptistic covenant theologians, so perhaps this portion of our debate has run its course. I will continue to read up on Covenant Theology, New Covenant theology and the contrasts and similarities.