How do I respond to arguments like these?

[Drew]

This theory is a bit out there, but strangly enough I follow it, I do not agree with it very much, but I see the line of thinking that would allow for such a conclusion to be drawn.

First, thanks for reading the material with an open mind. At the risk of name-dropping, I should come clean and "confess" that this "theory" is not my own invention, but is the work of British theologian NT Wright. Now while many do disagree with many of Wright's ideas, I think it is widely agreed that he is one of the best Biblical scholars of our day. And - to be fair to NT Wright - I am not 100 % sure I am reflecting his ideas accurately.

What makes you draw this conclusion? Scripture describes God as sovereign, not impotent. The narrative of scripture actually suggests that God had a plan (an ultimate end) from before the beginning that He ensured would come to pass in the fullness of time. Within tme He has allowed and directly caused various things to occur. The things He intervened to cause were done mainly for 2 reasons. 1) To ensure that His ultimate will would be accomplished and 2.) Because of His love for the people He created.

I don't actually agree that the Bible paints God as omnipotent, even though this is what we are taught in Sunday School. Here is an example of what I mean: at the very beginning, God "delegates" some of His power to the human beings that He places in charge of His world. So, right from the start, it is clear that God is not "pulling all the strings". And I think a strong case can be made that this commitment was binding on God Himself - and this is why the problem of sin and death cannot be properly dealt with in a manner other than one which leaves a human being in charge of the universe - just like in Genesis.

And I suggest that this is exactly what God does - Jesus is the "new Adam" and the universe is set back on track with a human being "in charge".

The point is that when Adam sinned, God was not omnipotent in the sense that He could not "do a miracle" and fix the problem through some means other than one that places a qualified human being in charge. And that means the long story of Israel leading to the work of Jesus as the "true human being".

Given all this, you should not be surprised that I do not place much stock in taking "one verse" that says something like "God is all-powerful" and taking that literally to mean that God has no limitations whatsoever. I suggest that we are intended to see such statement as slightly non-literal and interpret them in the context of the broader narrative.

Another related example: In Genesis, I suggest that when God tells Abraham that all the nations of the world will be blessed through the Jews, He (God) is really telling Abraham that Israel will be the means by which the scourge of sin and death are decisively dealt with. And God has to honour this promise - and He does, with Jesus being the very embodiment of Israel and fulfilling her destiny.

Again, the key point is that God is not "free" to decide that He will abandon His commitment to use Israel to solve the problem of sin and death.

So I really think this idea of God as "omnipotent" needs some really careful nuancing.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

The point is that when Adam sinned, God was not omnipotent in the sense that He could not "do a miracle" and fix the problem through some means other than one that places a qualified human being in charge. And that means the long story of Israel leading to the work of Jesus as the "true human being".

Given all this, you should not be surprised that I do not place much stock in taking "one verse" that says something like "God is all-powerful" and taking that literally to mean that God has no limitations whatsoever. I suggest that we are intended to see such statement as slightly non-literal and interpret them in the context of the broader narrative.

Again, the key point is that God is not "free" to decide that He will abandon His commitment to use Israel to solve the problem of sin and death.

So I really think this idea of God as "omnipotent" needs some really careful nuancing.

Limitation of God's power is worth looking at, just as looking into whether or not He is omnipotent is. Looking into both from scripture reveals a God repeatedly claims to be all powerful while never making the claim to be all knowing.
I will agree that God does not allow Himself the "freedom" to abandon His committments and will always keep His end of a bargain. Where we differ is in our understanding of a promise God make to Abraham. Let's look at the passages from Genesis that record God's "seed" promise to Abraham.

1. Gen 18 - For, AbraHam will become a great and highly populated nation, and all the nations of the earth be blest through him. <SUP>19</SUP> Because, I know that he will order his sons and the house that is to come from him to keep the ways of Jehovah – to be righteous and just – so that Jehovah can bring all the things to AbraHam that He has promised him.’

2. Gen 22 - ‘This is what Jehovah said: I have sworn [an oath] by Myself, that; because you’ve done this thing – because you haven’t spared your loved son for Me – <SUP>17</SUP> when it comes to blessings, I will bless you, and when it comes to multiplying, I will multiply your seed as the stars in the sky and as the sands on the sea shore. Your seed will inherit the cities of their enemies, <SUP>18</SUP> and all the nations of the earth will be blest by your seed, because you’ve listened to My voice.’

3. Gen 28 (to Jacob) - <SUP>13</SUP> Then Jehovah stood on it and said, ‘I am the God of your father AbraHam and the God of IsaAc. Don’t be afraid, for I will give the ground that you’re lying on to you and to your seed. <SUP>14</SUP> And your seed will be like the sand on the ground… it will spread from the sea to the north, to the south, and to the east. And through you and your seed all the tribes of the earth be blest.

From these passages it seems as though you are believing them to say that all the nations will be blessed through as you put it, the Jews. Is that what they tell us really? In Galatians 3, Paul tells the reader that the specific seed mentioned by the FATHER was Jesus.
So making the Jews this seed who would bless the world is somewhat inaccurate especially considering that Abraham has other seeds mentioned as such in scripture which include the children of Israel, the Lord Jesus, as well as the children of faith.

You said this earlier: "when God tells Abraham that all the nations of the world will be blessed through the Jews, He (God) is really telling Abraham that Israel will be the means by which the scourge of sin and death are decisively dealt with. And God has to honour this promise - and He does, with Jesus being the very embodiment of Israel and fulfilling her destiny."

The usage of wording like crypic or hidden back up the point that God made no such promise to Abraham. He promised Abraham land, a nation, and a Seed. In fact God did not say that all nations would be blessed through the Jews, He said the nations would be blessed through Abraham's Seed.


Romans 3
<SUP>

<SUP>13</SUP> However, the Anointed One bought our freedom from the Law’s curse by becoming cursed for us. As it is written: ‘Every man who is hung on a tree is cursed.’ <SUP>14</SUP> So the reason why this happened was so that the blessing of AbraHam could come through Jesus the Anointed One, and the nations could receive the promised Breath… which [we received] because of our faith!
<SUP>15</SUP> Brothers, allow me to explain this in human terms: Nobody can change or destroy a valid contract between men. <SUP>16</SUP> And the promises were given to ‘AbraHam and his seed.’ It doesn’t say, ‘to his seeds,’ as though there were many of them, but just one, ‘to your seed,’ who is the Anointed One!
<SUP>17</SUP> So, let me also say this about that Sacred Agreement which God agreed to: The Law (which came some four hundred and thirty years later) didn’t destroy [the Agreement with AbraHam ], so its promise hasn’t been done away with. <SUP>18</SUP> However, if the inheritance comes from the Law, then it doesn’t come from the promise anymore… yet God kindly gave it to AbraHam because of the promise.

</SUP>

 

[Drew]

Hello TOT - I only now saw your "red" comments:

1. God's covenant with Abraham promised that I<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:country-region>srael would be "blessing for the nations";

Fulfilled in Jesus

True, but what I forget to include in my "list of 10" was the important, and I believe entirely Biblical view, that Jesus acts as Israel in all that He does - Israels' destiny to "save the world" is taken on by Jesus. I suggest this is clearly demonstrable, even though the relevant arguments are a little lengthy.

If I am right - that Jesus takes on Israel's role - then my initial assertion is entirely consistent with Jesus' work.

2. In Romans, Paul is deeply concerned with arguing that God has indeed been faithful to this promise - that God has indeed used Israel to bless the nations;

huh

I am not sure what your "huh" means. I believe that what I have written is clear, so your issue is not in understanding what I have written, but rather that you see no evidence for the truthfulness of what I have written.

Romans 9 through 11 deals with precisely this issue - how the nation of Israel and the Gentiles have been brought together in the purposes such that Israel has, in accordance with God's promise, turned out to have served to bless the nations. From chapter 9:

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28158>2</SUP> I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28159>3</SUP> For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28160>4</SUP> the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28161>5</SUP> Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised!<SUP class=footnote value='[a]'>[a]</SUP> Amen. It is not as though God’s word had failed....

A clear reference to the promises of God in relation to Israel. And central to the covenant is this promise that Israel will indeed be a blessing to the nations. So it is clear: Paul is indeed mounting an argument about how God has been true to his promises about Israel. And as the following text shows, we can be certain that Paul includes in this the promise that Israel will be a blessing to the rest of the world, that is, to the Gentiles:

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28179>23</SUP> What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28180>24</SUP> even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28181>25</SUP>

For reasons I do not have space to get into in this post, the vessels of destruction must be lost Jews. I know that many Calvinists think the vessels of destruction are those, Jew of Gentile, pre-destined to ultimate loss, but this is demonstrably how Paul uses this phrase.

Paul is saying that God has caused something bad to happen to Israel so that the Gentiles can be blessed. This is exactly what my statement above is intended to convey.

And there is other material in Romans that supports this idea that God has used Israel to bless the rest of the world. The last half of Romans 11 drives this point home over and over again.

 

[Drew]

3. However, as per Romans 3, Paul recognizes that the way <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:country-region>Israel will bless the nations cannot be through "showing them how wonderful the Law of Moses is". In Romans 3, he is pretty clear – the Law of Moses cannot be a blessing to the world in this way.

huh again?

My point is that even though the Jew might have thought that the way the Jew would bless the world would be to set an example of "good living" under the Law of Moses, Paul clearly says that in terms of "behaviour", the Jew is no better than the Gentile. So however God will fulfill his promise for the Jews to be a blessing to the world, it will not be by their superiour righteous acts.

4. To put a finer point on this, Paul sees that the Jew, like the Gentile, is in Adam. So while the Law of Moses is good, it is operating on a Jew who is as fallen as the Gentile.

Didn't Paul in discussing the Torah simply tell what its purpose was (to point out sin, not to justify)?

No, Paul does more than this. Note this text from Romans 3:

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-27994>2</SUP> Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God

To be entrusted with something is to be given that something for the benefit of others. And the phrase "the very words of God" must certainly refer to the Law of Moses, if not more generally the entire ensemble of Jewish Biblical literature. So Paul clearly has in mind the notion that there is mandate for the Jew to function as a blessing to the whole world.

Besides - the Old Testament is rife, and I mean rife, with prophecies to the effect that when Israel's destiny reaches its promised end state, the Gentiles will then be blessed. A sophisticated and Biblically literate Pharisee like Paul almost certainly has this entire world-view swirling around in his mind as he writes Romans. Besides, as has already been hinted at in an earlier post, in Romans 9 Paul asserts that, despite their general apostasy, God's promises to Abraham have still been fulfilled. And one of those promises is the blessing of the Gentiles and it is clear from later on in chapter 9 as well as the last last half of chapter 11, Paul is reflecting very strongly on the matter of the blessing of the Gentiles.

So it is an over-simplification to suggest that the sole purpose of the Law was to point out sin. The Law was Israel's ethnic charter - the thing that marked her out from the Gentile world. So to the extent that Paul clearly argues that God has still used the Jew to bless the Gentile, this is equivalent to an assertion that the Law of Moses was given, among other reasons, to play a role - an indirect one of course - in blessing the Gentile world.

 

[Emmy Cass]

Sorry if this may seem off-topic (rather, it's getting back to the main point of this thread), but I also need help for religious arguments. A friend of mine is convinced that "God" is evil, using the Book of Job and the fact that with God's omnipotency, evil shouldn't exist as evidence of moral fallacies of the Lord. He also says that "Satan" is the real "God" because "God" killed several million people (many innocent), while "Satan" killed only a few (also citing the Book of Job). He is part of a Satanist organization that believes Satan is the true God and while at one of their meetings.

Here's my problem: they are quite convincing, and I am even feeling inclined to join them. Are there any arguments I can use against them too or are they right?

 

[Drew]

5. How then can God use the Jew to bless the world and be faithful to his promise?
Answer: God uses Law of Moses to make <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:country-region>Israel draw the sin of the world onto itself. As per a line of reasoning you get in Romans 5, 7, ,9, and 11, Paul argues, cryptically perhaps, that God is using the Law of Moses as a kind of "sponge" to soak of the sins of the world into the nation of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel.

</st1:country-region>

Not so much, God allowed the Jews to be the ones through whom the redeemer came that would bless the world and along the way kept all of His promises to them.

Well, neither of us has made the relevant arguments - I made an assertion, you countered it. So the objective reader will have no basis for deciding what the truth actually is.

I know the position you express here is the common one. And I see no reason why both our assertions can be true.

But the evidence for my position really is there. Here is one argument that cannot be made:

Consider Romans 7:13:

13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Paul is talking about the Torah here – the Law of Moses. And what does the law do? Does it merely reveal and particularize sin? No it makes sin utterly sinful. Paul is making the strange claim that Torah has actually increased or worsened sin in national <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>. Let's be fair here; to say sin is made utterly sinful makes no statement about the revealing of sin - it makes a statement about sin getting worse.And there is other evidence to support this interpretation. In Romans 9 and 11, Paul describes the hardening of I<st1:country-region w:st="on">srael </st1:country-region>- a hardening caused by God. This supports the argument that Torah does not merely reveal sin, it makes <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel </st1:country-region>"hardened". Here in Romans 9, Paul explains that God has hardened Israel just as He has hardened Pharoah:

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.â€g 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

It is <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1Israel</ST1</st1:country-region> that is the vessel fitted for destruction. And God has molded her that way - He has "caused her hardening" through the introduction of the Torah. If the Torah merely reveals sin, this is not hardening. But we know that <ST1<st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region></ST1 has indeed been hardened, as per what Paul goes on to write in Romans 11:

What then? What <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."d 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever

The overall picture is this: God has given the Torah to <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region></ST1 to harden them. Why is God doing this? Because he is luring or deceiving sin into being accumulated and localized in national <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>. With sin thus accumulated in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>, she truly is an "object of wrath, prepared for destruction".

Is she ultimately destroyed? No she is not, her faithful Messiah steps in, and all the sin built up in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> by the hardening effect of Torah is transferred to Jesus. What happens then? God finishes his plan of luring sin into a position of vulnerability. He condemns sin (not Jesus) on the cross:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.And so he condemned sin in sinful man,..

 

[Drew]

7. Why would God do this? Answer: to collect sin together into "one place" (national I<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

srael</ST1</st1:country-region>) so that this sin can then be focussed down into one person - Jesus. And then, sin is condemned on the cross (Romans 8:3)

8. By using <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> as this "sponge for sin", God has indeed been faithful to the Abrahamic promise. Law of Moses has, strangely, been used in this "dark" manner - making <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> more sinful, not less - for the ultimate benefit of us all.

9. Since the purpose of Law of Moses was to "lure" sin into I<st1:country-region w:st="on">srael</st1:country-region> and then into Jesus, the condemnation of sin on the cross brings the task of Law of Moses to a close.

7, 8, & 9 are simply off base my friend. The overall theme of the Torah was righteousness (loving the LORD with all one's heart, mind, and soul while loving one's neighbor as himself). The statues in addition to the Torah marked the terms of a covenant between God and national Israel. God's Torah remains and has been even before the covenant with Israel while the covenant itself as met its completion.

Again, you have provided no real argument to support your view that I am "off-base". But neither have I (to this point anyway) actually supported the assertoins that I a make above.

But I suggest my arguments cohere quite well with what Paul actually writes in Romans 8:3. Note how, yet again, this text often gets morphed into something other than what it actually says:

For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,<SUP class=footnote value='[b]'>[b]</SUP> God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.<SUP class=footnote value='[c]'>[c]</SUP> And so he condemned sin in the flesh,

Paul says that is sin which is condemned on the cross, not Jesus, even though most people will not accept this distinction and insist that they know what "Paul really meant" and morph this into a statement about Jesus being condemned.

Well, that is simply not what Paul says here.

Why is this relevant? It is relevant precisely because to assert that sin is condemned on the cross makes perfect sense in light of the hypothesis that
I am advancing - sin gets "lured" first into national Israel through the action of the Law of Moses, and then into the law of Moses where it is then, yes, condemned.

So there are indeed legitimate to ascribe to points 7, 8, and 9.

In any event, I believe you are mistaken, or at least not to explain more, in respect to your assertion that the "Torah remains". It really does not - at least in the sense of the Law of Moses remaining in force. Paul is clear in places like Ephesians 2 that the Law of Moses has been abolished.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

You said this earlier: "when God tells Abraham that all the nations of the world will be blessed through the Jews, He (God) is really telling Abraham that Israel will be the means by which the scourge of sin and death are decisively dealt with. And God has to honour this promise - and He does, with Jesus being the very embodiment of Israel and fulfilling her destiny."


The overall picture is this: God has given the Torah to <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region></ST1 to harden them. Why is God doing this? Because he is luring or deceiving sin into being accumulated and localized in national <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>. With sin thus accumulated in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>, she truly is an "object of wrath, prepared for destruction".

It is <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1Israel</ST1</st1:country-region> that is the vessel fitted for destruction. And God has molded her that way - He has "caused her hardening" through the introduction of the Torah....Why is God doing this? Because he is luring or deceiving sin into being accumulated and localized in national <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>. With sin thus accumulated in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>, she truly is an "object of wrath, prepared for destruction".

God finishes his plan of luring sin into a position of vulnerability.......and all the sin built up in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> by the hardening effect of Torah is transferred to Jesus.

Points of contention:
1. Israel was to be the means by which the scourge of sin and death would be dealt with.


2. The purpose of the Torah was to harden Israel.


3. God built up Israel for a fall.


4. The personified sin needed to be "tricked" by God who set a "trap" for it in the vessel known as Israel so that it could become vulnerable and ultimately destroyed.


These are the areas that immediately jump out as issues that connot be supported by proper application of scripture.

 

[Drew]

Points of contention:
1. Israel was to be the means by which the scourge of sin and death would be dealt with.

I think I have already addressed this, but I will try again. It is clear beyond doubt that the Old Testament repeatedly makes it clear that Israel will the means by which the whole world will be blessed. What may be less obvioiusly clear is the specific form this blessing will take. I have suggested, and I think I have already argued that Paul sees that, indeed, Israel will be hardened to bring salvation to the world. In fact, it is quite clear that this is exactly what Paul believes. From Romans 11:

For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world,

This is a clear affirmation of my point - the "they" here are clearly hardened Jews (check the context). So Paul is saying that it is through the hardening that has come upon Israel, salvation (reconciliation) has come to the world. And this, also from Romans 11

You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28230>20</SUP> Granted.

The "broken branches" are hardened Jews (this is absolutely clear from context). So Paul is again saying that the "hardening of some Jews" has had salvific effect for the Gentiles (the "I" here is clearly a Gentile - check the context).

So the case is really quite strong indeed - Paul sees that the hardening of the Jew has enabled the Gentile to become a member of God's true family - those who are "saved" from the power of sin and death.

2. The purpose of the Torah was to harden Israel.

I have already addressed this - please engage my argument.

Now: I have made a number of scriptural arguments such as those in posts 43 and 45. Please actually engage them and do not merely state that I am mistaken.

 

[Drew]

Limitation of God's power is worth looking at, just as looking into whether or not He is omnipotent is. Looking into both from scripture reveals a God repeatedly claims to be all powerful while never making the claim to be all knowing.

This is just an assertion, there is no argument. But, in any event, you agree that God "keeps His commitments". Fine. But I am saying more than this - I am saying that sometimes this fidelity to His commitments means that God has no choice but to work in a manner that involves pain and suffering for our world. So He is not "all powerful" in the sense that sometimes He does not have any options available to Him that are "nice". Now to be fair to you, I, too, am merely making an assertion when I say this.

But I suggest that if God could solve the problem of sin and death without the long and tortured history of Israel, He would have done so - why would a loving God order the genocide of entire peoples unless He had no choice but to do so in service of a higher purpose. And I suggest that one of the main overall themes of the Biblical narrative is that God chooses the nation of Israel to be the means by which the world is blessed. And it is quite clear that the way this happens must involve more than the fact that Jesus comes from the nation of Israel. As has already been shown, based on texts from Romans, Paul is quite convinced that hardening of the Jews has had salvific effect for the world! This makes the case all by itself - at least part of the way Israel has blessed the world is through her being hardened so that the world (read: Gentiles) can be saved. This is really quite clear, not least from this text from Romans 11:

Again I ask: Did they (***clearly hardened Jews by context) stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28222>12</SUP> But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28223>13</SUP> I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28224>14</SUP> in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28225>15</SUP> For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28226>16</SUP> If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28227>17</SUP> If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28228>18</SUP> do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28229>19</SUP> You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28230>20</SUP> Granted.

With all due respect, Paul repeatedly says the same thing in this text: the Gentiles have acquired "salvation" through the "stumble" or the "transgression" of the Jew. So how can you deny that, at least in part, the way that Israel blesses the world is through being hardened (broken off, stumbling, etc), with the result being reconciliation and salvation for the Gentile?

It would seem that to deny this, you would have to carve this chunk of text from the Bible.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Again I ask: Did they (***clearly hardened Jews by context) stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. <SUP id=en-NIV-28222 class=versenum>12</SUP> But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! <SUP id=en-NIV-28223 class=versenum>13</SUP> I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry <SUP id=en-NIV-28224 class=versenum>14</SUP> in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. <SUP id=en-NIV-28225 class=versenum>15</SUP> For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? <SUP id=en-NIV-28226 class=versenum>16</SUP> If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. <SUP id=en-NIV-28227 class=versenum>17</SUP> If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, <SUP id=en-NIV-28228 class=versenum>18</SUP> do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. <SUP id=en-NIV-28229 class=versenum>19</SUP> You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” <SUP id=en-NIV-28230 class=versenum>20</SUP> Granted.

Salvation of the world, Israel & the nations alike came through Jesus (Romans 1:16), and apart from Jesus, there is no salvation (Acts 4:12). Salvation DID not come from the Jews directly, it comes from Jesus, the anointed one. This salvation, (in Jesus), was FIRST offered to the Jews (in Jerusalem) before the saving gospel of Jesus was spread to the nations (Acts 1, Acts 10).

As far as the Jews hardening having a salvic effect on the world, I can see the connection or line of thinking that says:
"The Jews hardening led to them demanding the murder of anointed Jesus. Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection is what has made salvation possible for mankind, therefore since the Jews orchestrated Jesus' death because of their hardened ways, they made salvation possible."

----
What Paul is saying in the above quoted passage and through much of the Roman letter is NOT that the Jews are the reason salvation is available to the nations, but rather that the salvation which was first offered to them was generally rejected by them and had since been offered to the nations (A likely time this began was after the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7). It was Paul's hope that this fact, (the nations being offered what was first offered to the Jews) would provoke them to jealousy prompting them to accept the good message of the Messiah they had initially rejected.

And I suggest that one of the main overall themes of the Biblical narrative is that God chooses the nation of Israel to be the means by which the world is blessed. And it is quite clear that the way this happens must involve more than the fact that Jesus comes from the nation of Israel.

We half way agree here. The part that is not CLEAR as you put it is that the way Israel would be a blessing to the nations was apart from the Anointed One.

---
We must be careful not to mistakenly equate the entire OT with the law of Moses. And in addition to that, we would do well to realize that the Torah/law is NOT always a reference to the Mosiac covenant. In the mind of the ancient Israelites, Torah could also be understood to be an expression of God's righteousness.

Gal 5
For you were called to freedom, brothers, only not to freedom as an opportunity for the flesh. On the contrary, be slaves to one another through love. For all of the Torah is summed up in this one saying, [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"[/FONT]You will love your neighbor as yourself.[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"[/FONT]​

-----
What you wrote about Romans 8:3 makes a lot of sense, but I fail to see how it supports the 3 points that you made which I will repeat below.​

- that sin was gathered into "one place" (national I<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:country-region>srael</ST1) so that this sin can then be focussed down into one person, Jesus.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]- That <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> was a "sponge for sin" designed by God to be "more sinful" rather than holy for the ultimate benefit of us all.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]

- That the purpose of the Law of Moses was to "lure" sin into I<st1:country-region w:st="on">srael</st1:country-region> and then into Jesus.
[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
How can it be asserted that sin was gathered into one place when it was prevailent not only among the Jews, but others as close as the Romans and Samaritans, to those as far away a possible as well?​

How can it be said that Israel's was created to be a sponge for sin when God ordained Israel to be a HOLY Nation and a royal priesthood?​

The purpose of the Law/ Mosaic Covenant was to detail the terms of behavior those party to the covenant (Lev. 18 and following) must adhere to and to point out what sin was not only by defining righteous behavior, but also by dictating the penalties for trespassing the covenant and being lured into sin. These penalties make the seriousness of sin apparent (exceedingly sinfull if you will).​

[/FONT]

 

[Drew]

Salvation of the world, Israel & the nations alike came through Jesus (Romans 1:16), and apart from Jesus, there is no salvation (Acts 4:12).

Paul writes what he writes: Because of the "transgression" of the Jew, salvation, yes salvation has come to the Gentile. Its there, clearly, in Romans 11, and elswehere.

Now, to be fair to you, I admit that I never clearly expressed how Jesus connects to all this. In short, I would, of course, never deny that Jesus is the effector of salvation for all, but national Israel played a vital role as well. So when I agree with Paul in Romans 11 that hardened Jews had salvific implications for Gentiles, I am not thereby denying that Jesus is the "central" figure in the salvation story.

As far as the Jews hardening having a salvic effect on the world, I can see the connection or line of thinking that says:
"The Jews hardening led to them demanding the murder of anointed Jesus. Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection is what has made salvation possible for mankind, therefore since the Jews orchestrated Jesus' death because of their hardened ways, they made salvation possible."

----

Well, I think this is true, but it is only part of the truth. You really need to engage my arguments about Israel also functioned as a "sponge for sin".

What Paul is saying in the above quoted passage and through much of the Roman letter is NOT that the Jews are the reason salvation is available to the nations, but rather that the salvation which was first offered to them was generally rejected by them and had since been offered to the nations (A likely time this began was after the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7)

I am afraid that Paul disagrees, at least in the sense that Paul is clearly establishing a causal link between the "transgression of the Jews" and the fact of salvation being available to Gentiles:

because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious

Your explanation (that salvation was offered first to the Jews and then to the rest of the world) simply ignores the "because" part of Paul's statement - Paul states that because of the Jewish transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles. This is not the same thing as a statement that "first salvation was offered to Jews and then to Gentiles". We need to honour the "because". Perhaps we are kind of saying the same thing different ways - but unless you agree that the stumble, or transgression, of the Jew has some causal link to the salvation of the Gentile, I do not see how this squares with what Paul writes in Romans 11, and elsewhere.

 

[Drew]

.We half way agree here. The part that is not CLEAR as you put it is that the way Israel would be a blessing to the nations was apart from the Anointed One.

I have already provided the relevant arguments for this, and reminded you of the specific posts.

You need to engage those arguments.

We must be careful not to mistakenly equate the entire OT with the law of Moses. And in addition to that, we would do well to realize that the Torah/law is NOT always a reference to the Mosiac covenant. In the mind of the ancient Israelites, Torah could also be understood to be an expression of God's righteousness.

Maybe so, but I do not see how this has any bearing on the key issues we are discussing. What you are saying here is not an argument against the position that Jews were hardened to play a causal role in the salvation Gentiles.

What you wrote about Romans 8:3 makes a lot of sense, but I fail to see how it supports the 3 points that you made which I will repeat below.

​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]How can it be asserted that sin was gathered into one place when it was prevailent not only among the Jews, but others as close as the Romans and Samaritans, to those as far away a possible as well?​

[/FONT]
Good question. The answer I would offer is this, in outline form:

1. We know from Romans 7, that Paul sometimes uses the word "sin" in such a way as to denote a "force" or "power" with intentionality and malice. This is consistent with other Pauline statements about how "powers" were defeated on the cross;

2. In Romans 5 and 7 (I have argued the Romans 7 part already) Paul says that the Law of Moses functioned to make Israel more sinful - the "Law was added so that the transgression would increase".

3. If it were the case that God point 2 is true, and that Paul means what he says in Romans 8:3 about sin being condemned on the cross, this all makes a coherent story: (a) Law given to increase sin in Israel; (b) This means that the "power" of sin is drawn into Israel; (c) As Israel's representative (there are many reasons to believe that Jesus bears the destiny of Israel, although I have not yet made the relevant arguments), Jesus then takes the power of sin on Himself and it is then condemned. This has all the characteristics of a strategy on the part of God to "defeat" sin, by "tricking it" into entering the body of Jesus, having first been "tricked" into "setting up shop" in the nation of Israel.

I understand your objection, and I have considered this myself. My answer is that it is entirely Biblical to conceive of sin as a "staining force" that damages the world as it works. But this does not mean it cannot be "localized" and then substantively defeated, as I think Paul is arguing. Consider a virus. The virus could at work throughout the entire body, damaging cells. But suppose doctors developed a means to "lure" all the millions of virus particles into, say, the appendix. The rest of the body is still "damaged" from the earlier action of the virus, but now the doctors remove the appendix and a great victory has been achieved.

This, in rough analogy, is the kind of argument that Paul is making, leading up to the climactic statement in Romans 8:3.​

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Paul writes what he writes: Because of the "transgression" of the Jew, salvation, yes salvation has come to the Gentile. Its there, clearly, in Romans 11, and elswehere.

I am afraid that Paul disagrees, at least in the sense that Paul is clearly establishing a causal link between the "transgression of the Jews" and the fact of salvation being available to Gentiles:

because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious

Your explanation (that salvation was offered first to the Jews and then to the rest of the world) simply ignores the "because" part of Paul's statement - Paul states that because of the Jewish transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles. This is not the same thing as a statement that "first salvation was offered to Jews and then to Gentiles". We need to honour the "because". Perhaps we are kind of saying the same thing different ways - but unless you agree that the stumble, or transgression, of the Jew has some causal link to the salvation of the Gentile, I do not see how this squares with what Paul writes in Romans 11, and elsewhere.

We must take what Paul says in Romans and understand it in light of the overall narrative of scripture in order to properly understand what he was trying to convey.
What is the "transgression of the Jews" specifically alluded to by Paul? I would suggest that it is the rejection of the gospel. Paul starts off this letter by affirming the paramount importance of the gospel (Rom 1:16) and then writes continuously of how thw Jews had not accepted it. Their "transgression" was one that was continually occuring AFTER the resurrection of the Lord.

With that said, here's something to consider. Would the Lord have offered the saving power of the gospel to the nations had the Jews not rejected it? And is that what Paul is saying here?

Remember that "because of their transgression (the Jew's rejection of the gospel), salvation came to the Gentiles to make Israel envious."
What did Paul say that he hoped them being envious (jealous) would accomplish?
The salvation of their souls by coming to a knowledge of the truth in Anointed Jesus is what he hoped for! (Romans 10:16 and following).

Again, the point of salvation being offered to the nations BECAUSE of the transgression/wanderings of the Jews was to make them (the Jews) jealous so they would be provoked to righteousness.

 

[Drew]

We must take what Paul says in Romans and understand it in light of the overall narrative of scripture in order to properly understand what he was trying to convey.

Obviously, I would agree and see nothing in the "narrative" that militates against the argument I am advancing.

What is the "transgression of the Jews" specifically alluded to by Paul? I would suggest that it is the rejection of the gospel. Paul starts off this letter by affirming the paramount importance of the gospel (Rom 1:16) and then writes continuously of how thw Jews had not accepted it. Their "transgression" was one that was continually occuring AFTER the resurrection of the Lord.

I don't see how this view can be sustained in light of what Paul writes in Romans 9. I would suggest that Paul sees the rejection of the gospel as the present particularity of a larger "problem" of "sinning Israel":

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28179>23</SUP> What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28180>24</SUP> even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28181>25</SUP> As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,â€<SUP class=footnote value='[i]'>[i]</SUP>
<SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28182>26</SUP> and,
“In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’â€<SUP class=footnote value='[j]'>[j]</SUP>
<SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28183>27</SUP> Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
<SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28184>28</SUP> For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.â€<SUP class=footnote value='[k]'>[k]</SUP>
<SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28185>29</SUP> It is just as Isaiah said previously:
“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.â€<SUP class=footnote value='[l]'>[l]</SUP> <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28186>30</SUP> What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28187>31</SUP> but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28188>32</SUP> Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28189>33</SUP> As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame

This is an analysis of Israel's plight, invoking the prophets, etc. Clearly Paul discerns a thread of "problems" throughout Israel's past, and does not simply think that they only stumbled in their rejection of Jesus. Even if the "stumbling stone" does refer solely to Jesus (and I do not think that it does, but that's a side-issue), we still have this clear critique of the Jews seeking salvation "by works". This particular ciritique is not limited to the matter of rejceting Jesus - it refers to a systemic misunderstanding on the part of most Jews as to what God was up to.

And we have this from chapter 10:

Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28191>2</SUP> For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-28192>3</SUP> Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own,

I suggest, but will not argue in this particular post that this is a statement that Jews were seeking a salvation that was for Jews and Jews only - again, a "stumble" that is over and above the mere rejection of Jesus.

Here, as well as arguably in Romans 3 and 4, Paul is critiquing the Jewish belief in ethnic privilege - that God's true family was limited to Jews only. Such a critique, again, goes beyond mere rejection of the gospel and speaks to something deeper and more problematic in the Jewish worldview.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

First off, my apologies to the OP. I know I have been the culprit of taking this thread down a part never intended.
Drew, it seems our disagreement is a lot smaller than our back and forth makes it seem.

 

[Drew]

First off, my apologies to the OP. I know I have been the culprit of taking this thread down a part never intended.
Drew, it seems our disagreement is a lot smaller than our back and forth makes it seem.

Perhaps. But I must say you are a very polite person and it is enjoyable to "debate" with you.

But I would say all this is indeed relevant. If the position I am advocating is correct, then it offers a credible explanation for a lot of that violence and bloodshed in the Old Testament - God is doing what He has to do to "trick" the power of sin to take up residence in national Israel.

By the way, as you may have already observed, my position requires the following be accepted a priori:

1. The Bible expresses fundamental concepts that are not set forth explicitly, but are true nonetheless. Some people do not like this idea, believing that God would not be so "subtle";

2. On a related note, there is a "things are not what they appear to be" principle at work in the Scriptures. Thus, I argue that even though it seems like the Law of Moses was given to make Israel holy, this does not ultimately turn out to be its most important function. Again, I understand why many do not like this, but I think it is indeed the way things are.

Another element of my argument: In the Old Testament, there are a number of allusions of God as "potter" and Israel as "pot". It is, I suggest, no co-incidence that right in the middle of Paul's "lsrael" argument of Romans 9-11, he likens Israel to a clay vessel fitted for destruction (middle of chapter 9). This allusion fits perfectly into the picture I am setting forth - Israel has been hardened by God. Look at this text in particular:

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region></st1lace>, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of <st1lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region></st1lace>

I suggest that Paul is tapping into this theme of God "damaging" (marring) Israel for some greater purpose. I further suggest that this greater purpose is nothing less than solving the sin and death problem with Israel "setting up" the climactic work of Jesus on the cross.

 

[Deavonreye]

Sorry if this may seem off-topic (rather, it's getting back to the main point of this thread), but I also need help for religious arguments. A friend of mine is convinced that "God" is evil, using the Book of Job and the fact that with God's omnipotency, evil shouldn't exist as evidence of moral fallacies of the Lord. He also says that "Satan" is the real "God" because "God" killed several million people (many innocent), while "Satan" killed only a few (also citing the Book of Job). He is part of a Satanist organization that believes Satan is the true God and while at one of their meetings.

Here's my problem: they are quite convincing, and I am even feeling inclined to join them. Are there any arguments I can use against them too or are they right?

Hello Emmy Cass [like the name]. Welcome to the forum.

The people you are talking about may sound convincing, . . . however, it cannot be determined that the stories in the Old Testament actually happened as they are believed. It is quite possible that they were merely stories that [over centuries of being told from person to person] changed from simple stories to literal accounts. Job, Noah flood, trekking Hebrews, . . . etc.

So who's right? I doubt that question can be legitimately answered. What each of us need to do, regardless, is to be sure that which we embrace is moral and doesn't harm others in the process of following it.

 

[WIP]

There is nobody alive today that can validate for sure that our existance as the united states began in 1776 either except because someone either verbally or in writing passed it down from one generation to another.

 

[Deavonreye]

There is nobody alive today that can validate for sure that our existance as the united states began in 1776 either except because someone either verbally or in writing passed it down from one generation to another.

Your point?