Romans and the New Covenant

[darinhouston]

Studying Romans 9-11 -- I'm having trouble understanding how to square what Paul implies in Romans 9 (we were always saved by the same basis -- faith) and the notion in Hebrews and elsewhere that things did change and that it's a different covenant. So, the question is what's different and what's the same (other than who can participate)? Some of what NT Wright has said about distinguishing justification from salvation seems to bear on this but maybe there are other thoughts.

[steve]

Yes. The New Covenant did not bring a new means of justification—nor did it extend the range of potential recipients (since it was always possible for gentiles to be saved). The New Covenant simply brought a new set of benefits. As the writer of Hebrews says, it has "better promises" (8:6). These better promises, according to Jeremiah 31:31-34, included direct knowledge of God by all participants, and the law being written on the hearts.

[darinhouston]

So -- same great price, new and improved product.

[steve]

That's right.

[darinhouston]

Still, it seems there is something different about the way God sees the groups. Even though there were always gentiles in God's People, they seem to have been like uninvited guests. Thankfully, the host is gracious and let them in, but now we're all invited and considered proper members of His People.

[steve]

Israel was special in being chosen to be God's earthly agents to preserve the knowledge of Himself in the earth and to bring forth the Seed through whom the Gentiles would be blessed. This was the great privilege of being in Israel. One could be in Israel without being born Jewish (that is, through becoming a proselyte). There was no unique advantage to being Jewish by birth, except, of course, for the convenience of being born in Israel, as opposed to having to "join."

Also, I believe that Gentiles could be justified by faith even if they never became part of that earthly entity of Israel. Dying on good terms with God is a separate issue to that of being part, in this life, of what He is doing in history.

[brody196]

Israel was special in being chosen to be God's earthly agents to preserve the knowledge of Himself in the earth and to bring forth the Seed through whom the Gentiles would be blessed. This was the great privilege of being in Israel. One could be in Israel without being born Jewish (that is, through becoming a proselyte). There was no unique advantage to being Jewish by birth, except, of course, for the convenience of being born in Israel, as opposed to having to "join."

Also, I believe that Gentiles could be justified by faith even if they never became part of that earthly entity of Israel. Dying on good terms with God is a separate issue to that of being part, in this life, of what He is doing in history.

The highlighted part above reminds me of children today who are born into a Christian family. Though they still have to make a choice to obey God or not, they have the benefits of learning about God and knowing the scriptures which are able to "make thee wise unto salvation". In a sense, the Jewish children(and Christian) were both blessed and cursed to be born of the "chosen people". To whom much is given, much is required. It seems reasonable to think that God is going to hold those children to a higher accountability for knowing about his purposes, more so than the ordinary Gentile who only knew of God through other revelations(Creation, conscience, etc..) In the same way , I personally know men and women today who were brought up in devoutly Christian families who do not seem to care much about the things of God, while their counterpoint(children born into non-Christian families) become disciples and have a zeal for God second to none.

[Homer]

Steve wrote:

Also, I believe that Gentiles could be justified by faith even if they never became part of that earthly entity of Israel. Dying on good terms with God is a separate issue to that of being part, in this life, of what He is doing in history

IMO Steve has hit the nail on the head here. There were god-fearing believers before Israel existed, before the Law was given. If there were righteous people in lands far from Israel who lived and died without ever hearing of the Law, who can say they were not justified by faith the same as before the Law came, just as Abraham was?

[look2jesus]

I think I agree with Steve and Homer re: that Gentiles could be justified by faith even if they never became part of that earthly entity of Israel. But I wonder what would be the standard for righteousness apart from the Law and before Christ was revealed? And how would they learn these standards. It seems that, only with the commencing of the New Covenant, did God write His laws in the heart. Was it a matter of conscience or some form of the "golden rule"? Thoughts, anyone?

[steve7150]

And how would they learn these standards








According to John "The true light which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world" John 1.9 , which sounds like Jesus in some way enlightened everyone on some level about God and about right and wrong prior to his incarnation.