No Longer Under the Law (Part 2)
February 20th, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
In today’s post, we will continue to discuss our first proposition: That in the New Testament era, believers are no longer under any part of the Mosaic Law.
This proposition is based on four premises, the first of which we considered yesterday (that the biblical saints regarded the Mosaic Law as a solitary unit, such that to be under part of it is to be under the whole, and vice versa).
Today we will consider a second premise: New Testament believers are no longer under the Mosaic Law because Jesus Christ fulfilled that Law perfectly and completely.
Not only was Jesus born under the Mosaic Law (Luke 2:21-24; Rom. 15:8; Gal. 4:4); He obeyed the Mosaic Law (Matt. 3:15; Luke 22:8; 1 John 3:4-5); and He commanded the Jews of His day to obey it also (Matt. 5-7; 8:4; 19:17-19). In fact, Christ says in Matthew 5:17-18 that He came to “fulfill” the Law – a promise He kept in every way possible.
First, He fulfilled all of the moral requirements of the Law, keeping every one of the commandments perfectly (Rom. 5:19) and taking away the curse of the Law for those who trust in Him (Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:13; cf. Matt. 27:51). Second, He fulfilled the civil requirements of the Law, replacing the old constitution (the Mosaic Covenant) with a new constitution (the New Covenant — 2 Cor. 3:4-6; Heb. 8:7-13; 9:15; 10:14-17; 12:24; 13:20).
Third, He fulfilled the ceremonial requirements of the Law, as the ultimate and perfect sacrifice (Heb. 7:27; 9:12). And fourth, He perfectly and completely fulfilled all of the messianic prophecies given in the Old Testament (both those found in the Pentateuch and those found in the rest of the OT — Matt. 1:22).
Of course, these divisions (moral, civil, ceremonial) are artificial. Yet, they help show the completeness with which Christ fulfilled every aspect of the Old Testament Law.
As the Spotless Lamb (1 Pet. 1:19), Christ fulfilled the Law’s moral requirements; as the King of Kings (Rev. 17:14), Christ fulfilled the Law’s civil requirements; as the great High Priest (Heb. 4:14), Christ fulfilled the Law’s ceremonial requirements; and as the Coming One (Matt. 11:13), Christ fulfilled God’s messianic promises (as delineated in all of Old Testament prophecy).
Moreover, what the Law could not do (namely, save), God did through Christ (Romans 8:3). Those who are in Christ are no longer under the Law of Moses, but are under the Law of Christ — since they are in Him who perfectly fulfilled the Law of God in every respect.
We will consider more of what it means to be under the Law of Christ in tomorrow’s post.
* * * *
For those interested, here are several lists showing additional aspects of the Mosaic Law that Christ perfectly fulfilled:
Christ’s Fulfillment of the Mosaic Offerings
1. Burnt Offering (Lev. 1:3-17; 6:8-13) — purpose was atonement — Christ’s sinless nature allowed Him to atone for our sins.
2. Grain Offering (Lev. 2:1-16; 6:14-23) — purpose was dedication/consecration — Christ was wholly devoted to the Father’s purposes.
3. Peace Offering (Lev. 3:1-17; 7:11-36) — purpose was reconciliation/fellowship — Christ made it possible for us to have everlasting peace with God.
4. Sin Offering (Lev. 4:1-5:13; 6:24-30) — purpose was propitiation — Christ took our place on the cross in order to save us.
5. Trespass Offering (Lev. 5:14-6:7; 7:1-10) — purpose was repentance — Christ paid it all for redemption.
Christ’s Fulfillment of Old Testament Feasts (Lev. 23)
1. Passover (March/April) — Death of Christ (1 Cor. 5:7)
2. Unleavened Bread (March/April) – Sinlessness of Christ (1 Cor. 5:8)
3. Firstfruits (March/April) — Resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:23)
4. Pentecost (May/June) — Outpouring of Spirit of Christ (Acts 1:5; 2:4)
5. Trumpets (Sept/Oct) — Israel’s Regathering by Christ (Matt. 24:31)
6. Atonement (Sept/Oct) — Substitutionary Sacrifice by Christ (Rom. 11:26)
7. Tabernacles (Sept/Oct) — 7. Rest and Reunion with Christ (Zech. 14:16-19)
OT Sacrifices Compared to Christ’s Sacrifice in Hebrews
1. Old Covenant (temporary) — New covenant (forever) Heb. 7:22; 8:6,13; 10:20
2. Obsolete promises — Better promises Heb. 8:6-13
3. A shadow — The reality Heb. 8:5; 9:23,24; 10:1
4. Aaronic priesthood (many) — Melchizedekian (one) Heb. 6:19-7:25
5. Sinful priesthood — Sinless Priest Heb. 7:26,27; 9:7
6. Limited-by-death priesthood — Forever priesthood Heb. 7:16,17,23,24
7. Daily sacrifices — Once-for-all sacrifice Heb. 7:27; 9:12,25,26; 10:9,10,12
8. Animal sacrifices — Sacrifice of God’s Son Heb. 9:11-15,26; 10:4-10,19
9. Ongoing sacrifices — Sacrifices unnecessary Heb. 10:11-14,18
10. One year atonement — Eternal propitiation Heb. 7:25; 9:12,15; 10:1-4,12
NOTE: These lists are adapted from The MacArthur Study Bible (pp. 158, 160, 186).
* * * * *
Most well put! The 3-fold lists arranged together is an eye opener for me :]
Its important not to swing to the opposite end and preach that all you need is love:
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/08/all-you-need-is-love.html
Speaking on this topic what do Jews who reject Christ have to say about all of this? I was wondering do they just reject all of the claims of Christ, do they call him a prophet or what? I was seeking a good book or something to discuss it. In a recent article I read talked about witnessing to Jews. I realize while I know their God and the history of the Old teastament, I don’t know why they claim Jesus isn’t the Messiah. Also if some Jews were judicially blinded by God until Jesus returns will they ever come to saving faith now? Don’t mean to get off track Nathan, this series has been great and I am trying to apply it. Thanks.
This is great. This is how I’ve believed for some time. I’m glad I have more verses and scripture to back up my beliefs now. You have alot more listed than I have found in my studies.
I hope now if I ever get in a discussion about this again I can be more clear in what I am talking about. Thanks alot, Nathan.
Nathan,
Please define what you mean by being “under” the Law.
Scott
While I’ve only just begun visiting this site, I have appreciated the time & effort involved in posting such biblically sound and informative articles every day!
With regard to David B’s question, I recently became aware of a man named Dr. Michael Brown of ICN ministries http://www.icnministries.org/. As a “Jewish believer in Jesus,” his mission involves speaking specifically to Jewish objections to Jesus as Messiah. To this end, he has authored “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus” volumes 1-4.
I have not yet read his books and cannot speak to the accuracy of their theological content, but since I too am curious about why the Jews reject Jesus as Messiah, I thought a Jewish evangelist was a logical source of info.
“Those who are in Christ are no longer under the Law of Moses, but are under the Law of Christ”
This appears to be a distinction without a difference. The Law of Christ is the Law of Moses. It is the same God who gave BOTH! And as reflection of God’s unchanging character, His Law does not change in it’s essence, only in it’s administration.
Folks,
I must admit to not being very patient when reading and will often object before the author has completely presented their thought. Waiting until the author is finished is much like listening during a conversation while the other person speaks. May I suggest that we wait until Nathan has completed his presentation to offer an antithesis, if required, to his supposition? Nathan has, in the past, proven his firm footing in scripture so by waiting we may find that many of our questions or objections will be answered or shown to be unwarranted.
David, do you think the Romans read Paul’s statement and concluded that the Law of Christ is the same as the law of Moses? If so, it doesn’t seem like it would make sense to say that they were no longer under the law of Moses if they really are, as you have suggested. Romans 7:4 seems to teach that you can’t be joined to two laws. You must die to one in order to be joined to another. While the law of Moses is a reflection of the character of God, that doesn’t doesn’t help us; it only condemns us, which is why Paul says of it “weak as it was.” While both laws are reflections of God’s character, one kills and the other gives life.
I look forward to reading more, this is very enlightening.
David, it seems to me that a distinction is a difference, no? When Jesus established the New Covenant in His blood, He was, in essence, the new Lawgiver who was greater than Moses, right? That definitely makes a difference I think. Somewhere in Hebrews it speaks of the superiority of the New Covenant because of its fulfillment in Christ. Maybe because the New Covenant involves inner transformation not just an adherence to an outer code of conduct, as Paul spoke of the circumcision of the heart. Somehow the New Covenant is different and better though, we are now able to enter the Holy of Holies through Christ.
David,
Actually, Nathan’s statement is thoroughly biblical and accurate. The apostle Paul clearly distinguishes between the law of Moses and the law of Christ in I Cor.9:21:
“To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.” (ESV)
You are correct in saying that both came from God, as Paul clearly indicates. But he does distinguish between them.
Consider also the following texts: James 1:25 c.f. John 13:34; James 2:8,12 c.f. John 13:34.
Blessings,
Steve
Nathan,
You stated: “Of course, these divisions (moral, civil, ceremonial) are artificial.”
I agree that they are mostly a handy framework for categorizing the law by preachers and teachers.
Here’s a question for you:
When Paul refers to the “law of God written on the hearts” of the Gentiles who did not possess the written Law of Moses (Romans 2:14-15), is he speaking of the whole Law, moral, civil and ceremonial, or only the moral aspect of the law (i.e., the Decalogue)?
I suspect Paul was not refering to the ceremonial law, but to the moral law.
What do you think?
Great series,
Steve
Steve, the Law of God written on hearts can’t be the 10 Commandments (the so-called moral law).
Again, we need need to get the moral/civil/ceremonial paradigm out of our heads. The moment we use that paradigm we’re already off track in understanding Scripture.
The Ten Commandments are inseperably part of the Law of Moses. When Paul says they don’t have the Law of Moses, that includes the 10 commandments.
The totality of the Mosaic Law, including the 10 Commandments, was given to Israel and Israel alone. I myself am looking forward to Nate’s application for the believer, but it still stands that the nation of Israel is the sole receipient of the Law, not Christians.
Steve, et al.,
I acknowledged there is a distinction to be made. But the distinction is in the adminstration of God’s Law, not the abiding essence. My concern lies in a bifuraction of the Law of God that He Himself never intended. In Christ, we are dead to the Law as a tutor (Gal.3:25), and as a burden (Matt 11:29). Jesus came to fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law (Matt 5:19). by perfect and personal obiedence, not the Law itself.
He made sure to qualify His fulfillment by saying that, “not one jot nor tittle would pass away” (Matt 5:20ff). Therefore as a rule of life, rooted in the unchanging character of God, His Law remains a guide towards righteousness (Ps.119, Rom 8:4). The Law of God demonstrates to those who seek to imitate Christ in all things, exactly what is holy, just and good (Rom. 7:12).
Please define what you mean by being “under” the Law.
“Under” the law means that the law has dominion over you– is lord over you –until you die. But we, having died through the body of Christ to that which held us captive, are released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
This appears to be a distinction without a difference. The Law of Christ is the Law of Moses.
I disagree. The Law of Christ gives life, whereas the Law of Moses condemns and kills.
David B., for your particular focus, I recommend Messianic Christology by Arnold Fruchtenbaum.
Greetings Everyone. Thanks for the great comments this morning. I’ll do my best to respond to some of the questions that have been asked so far.
David B.,,good questions about witnessing to Jews. I would direct you to William Varner’s book The Messiah: Revealed, Rejected, Received (you can get it on Amazon), and also to web resources like Friends of Israel (at http://www.foi.org).
Scott, you asked me to define what I mean by being “under” the Law. It is language that I am borrowing from Romans 6:14-15, which says that “you are not under law but under grace” (cf. John 1:17). (Thanks to dec for his insightful comment on this above.) In our context, it refers to whether or not the Mosaic Law is still binding on New Testament believers, such that they are required (or even encouraged) to live out their faith by adhering to specific commands of the Mosaic Law. An applicable passage of Scripture would be Romans 7:4–6, where Paul writes, “Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.”
David McCrory, thanks for your comment. I agree that the same God gave both the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. I would not agree, however, that there is no difference between those two laws. Clearly, God’s character never changes. But to say that the Law of Christ is the Law of Moses does not seem, to me, to accurately represent the NT texts that distinguish between the two. At the same time, I think I understand what you are trying to say, and I think in the end you’ll find that my view is not too far removed from yours.
JDS, thanks for urging patience. I do apologize to all for the time it takes to move through a series like this.
Marlon, Sharon, Gabriel, and Cindy, thanks for your thoughts. I greatly appreciate the feedback from everyone.
Steve, good references (1 Cor. 9:21; James 1:25 c.f. John 13:34; James 2:8,12 c.f. John 13:34). Also, a great question about Romans 2:14–15. If you don’t mind, I’m going to hold off on answering until we’re done with our series. But that is a key verse, and an important part of what I am hoping to establish here.
Again, thanks to all. It’s a joy to interact about the things of God and His Word!
May He be exalted in this discussion.
- NB
Eric, I agree, but in truth all you need is Love. Not worldly love which is based in need, but in His Love, which is based in serving.
John tells us that God is Love. He got that from Jesus.
The scriptures say that which is of Love is of God and that which is not of Love is not of God. If all we need is God, the all we need is Love – but not the Beetles love.
One thing that is required when studing the Bible is discernment. We are spiritually free from the law, but we are not free from the physical consequences of our earthly walk. If I commit murder I will go to prison any maybe put to death, but if I ask for forgiveness I will be forgiven.
The site you list delves a bit to much in other people’s sin. One does not have to worship Idol, murder, or contract AIDS from destructive behavior, to be sinful. No sin is greater than another. It may be comforting to tell ourselves that there are bad people and they will get theirs, but sin separates all of us from God inless we yeild our lives to his. One of those horrible AIDS victims that a segment of the worldly church love to dwell on may be next to you in Heaven. Paul after all was a persecutor of Christians before the became the lead spokesperson for God. Careful how you judge others and be of more care about your sins.
I say that only as a caution. Your sins are between you and God, as are everyone elses. Teaching about the consequences of behavior is legitmate, and needed, but there is not one person on earth that is free from eathly behavior. We, Christ Followers, are all dead in the flesh and living in the spirit. God wants us to come to Him so he can lead us to less destructive lives.
In Love,
Roy
“Clearly, God’s character never changes.”
Amen, but man’s understanding does.
Nathan,
Will you be commenting on Mark 2:21-22, old wineskins and new wine? Seems to apply to our discussion.
Keep up the good study and discussion…
Dan
My dear brother in the Faith and Pastor Trevor Carlise sent me a reply regarding the article:
No Longer Under the Law (Part 1), February 19th, 2008 (By Nathan Busenitz)
I would request that you see what Trevor has seen as a potential danger in understanding from that article. Also I enclose my lowly understanding, by the response I gave in assrance to Trevor that I delight in the Law and in the Grace delivered from our LORD.
———————————————————
—– Original Message —–
From: William du Plooy
To: T CARLISLE
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: No Longer Under the Law (Part 1)
Hi brother Trevor,
I really am glad for your comments, it is easy to move into a New Covenant Theology, as described as you have.
I must admit that I do not agree fully with Nathan’s view, but I DO find it intriguing to consider his articles. I am not sure If you had been able to see my comments on Nathan’s posts, and would greatly value your comments.
I would confirm that my understanding of the Law is that I delight in it, that it is not burdensome, nor indeed am I under the yoke thereof, but I rejoice in it. I am Totally convicted under the Law of my personal iniquity and sin, and for that I am thankful, so that I may grow in sanctification as much as I am convicted by the Law through the working of the Spirit, just as originally unto salvation.
I lean towards a single Covenant of Grace unto salvation from the outset of Creation, as Abraham’s faith was accounted to him for righteousness – By grace through faith. By the Law I had been convicted through the Spirit of sin and righteousness and thus I am glad for the Law as it sets forth the example of the character of the LORD. I do also furthermore lean to an understanding that the LORD Yahweh is the One and the same from eternity past unto eternity future including the present, I see in Israel a distinction between “Spiritual” or Believing Israel and National or Ethnic Israel. As far as I can ascertain as a layman, Romans 9-11 speaks to a unity between all Spiritual Believers throughout eternity; but I accept my lack of education in that. My deduction is thus that I am in envy (Good and bad) of Ethnic Israel in as far as the law pertains to blessing, but as Spiritual Israel I rejoice in the grace of God, despite the Law… I do hope this makes sense, I basically look to honor the LORD by the Law, as best a fallen creature can, without seeking to fulfill the desire of the flesh. But I am totally secure by grace apart from the Law and thankful for the election by grace through faith. After all Faith apart from works is dead. Thus by my obedience to the works prepared beforehand (Ephesians 2-8-10) in the Law, I seek to honor God to His glory because of the grace with which I have been begotten again unto a new and living Hope in Messiah Jesus.
Sorry, for the “outpouring”….
I will be away tomorrow and am quite tired from going out today, but I WILL endeavor to share your comments on Pulpit Magazine as soon as I can.
I really enjoyed reading your comments and look forward to future “discussions” that will lead to edification in truth.
Do you wish me to share your thoughts to my e-mailing listing also? I will gladly do so.
With much appreciation.
By grace alone,
William
—– Original Message —–
From: T CARLISLE
To: William Duplooy
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: No Longer Under the Law (Part 1)
Dear William,
I feel it necessary to respond to the articles on the law by Nathan Busenitz presently being disseminated widely. Are you familiar with Dispensationalist or New Covenant Theology ? There is an alternative hermeneutic to that given by brother Busenitz on the doctrine of the law. Indeed it is the historic, traditional and ( believed by almost every weighty theologian of the past five hundred years ) biblical view. As my server will not allow me to block send my response to brother Busenitz would you in the interest of fairness send out my comments in order that others might consider them.
Your brother in Christ,
Trevor Carlisle
—————————————————
This article is seriously flawed at the outset. The author makes the mistake of failing to recognise that the Decalogue ( Ten Commandments ) or Moral Law is unique and not merely ‘ Mosaic ‘. The Apostle Paul reminds us of this fact when he states that the Moral Law pre-dates Moses and Sinai, and was written on men’s hearts from creation. ( Romans 2 v 14,15 ) How was it possible for the Apostle to inform his readers that the gentiles who had not the law ( i.e. the law in ‘ book ‘ form ) were yet in some way obedient to the law ? The answer he tells us, was that the law was written upon their hearts. There can be no doubt that the law Paul refers to is the Decalogue when he speaks of the law in this passage because he actually cites the eighth v 21, the seventh v 22, and the second or possibly the tenth ( depending upon the interpretation of the reference to idols ) also v 22. The author takes exception to the traditional, historical categorising of the branches of the law into Moral, Civil and Ceremonial. His justification for doing this he states is because …” the Jews either did not acknowledge it or at least did not insist on it. ” But this is no reason at all to reject this classification of the law. The Jews got many things wrong which is why the Saviour was continually correcting their flawed hermeneutics and misinterpretations of God’s Word. Just as we do not object to the term Trinity, ( although as a word it does not appear in the Scriptures ) should we object to the terms Civil, Ceremonial and Moral, which although not appearing in Scripture do faithfully define and explain various aspects of the law ? Indeed the author himself, perhaps inadvertently, admits as much when he concedes that ” the law ” …” covered moral, civil and ceremonial aspects of life. ” So why then does he object to the classification ? What law were people under prior to Moses ? What law is written on the hearts of all men ? Was The Moral Law for Israel ? Yes, and for everyone else !! Man is a moral being created in God’s image and likeness and wherever man is found, without exception, he is under God’s moral law. This is why the Ten Commandments are indeed unique ! The author is advocating New Covenant Theology which is simply a radical form of Dispensationalism rejected by historic biblical Christianity.
Sincere regards
Trevor Carlisle
Matthew 5:17-18
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
Luke 10:26-28
“He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”
So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”
And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live”
Matthew 22:36-40
““Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
This it is Christ who completes the Law, that does not mean to say we have no part in the Law.
By grace through a living Faith.
William, and by extension Trevor,
I don’t think that’s a fair assessment of Nathan’s position that he is promoting a New Covenant Theology. As a matter of fact, The Master’s Seminary just recently printed in its recent journal (TMSJ) a careful analysis and critique of that position, that they disagree with. I also don’t think its fair to say that they are using a different hermeneutic. We are all applying the same hermeneutic (literal, grammatical, historical, plenary). How well we practice good hermeneutics is the issue, especially in the discussion regarding Deuteronomy 6 in previous posts. You will need to continue to read the following articles before you jump to conclusions.
In all due respect,
Dan
The author is advocating New Covenant Theology which is simply a radical form of Dispensationalism rejected by historic biblical Christianity.
Dear Trevor and William,
In actuality, I do not espouse New Covenant Theology. I believe this will be clarified as the series progresses. As I’ve noted in some prior comments, this is just my first proposition — the second will bring balance to the first. So I would humbly ask for a little more time to explain myself.
As Dan noted, our seminary just recently did a thorough critique of NCT. I wholeheartedly affirm their position on that issue.
In Christ,
Nathan
Dear brothers Nathan and Dan,
I hope that my comments did NOT seem to be implying that Nathan, The Masters Seminary nor indeed Grace Community Church where advocating NCT.
Perhaps I failed to say that I have every confidence in your abilities individually and collectively to treat the matters of Theology with the due care it deserves.
I can see that perhaps the approach taken is leading up towards a proper explenation, and I am convinced that this is perhaps where others have found it difficult to relate to where Nathan stands.
I am going to (Humbly) suggest that perhaps when we start a discussion, it Might be better to start with what it is NOT and then move towards what it IS we do understand from Scripture… I say this not as an intelligent man, but merely as a way of seeking better clarity to those that do NOT understand the Theology and Doctrines in the same fashion as you or I do. Also bearing in mind, that we would not always see Everything in exactely the same fashion, even in the same Seminary or Church (In the non Salvation Essentials).
That said, I do know that the Escathology of some of my brethren do not correspond with each other, and I know that some can see that as an area of difficulty. I myself find that it is hard to ascribe to a Full “adherence” of ANY Escathology, albeit that I would (As far as my current understanding allows) say that I am convinced very loosly and basically of a pre-millenial dispensational – eternal Covenant of Grace (The latter part being an Essential and unwavering Doctrine)…
I believe that I may one day have a clearer understanding of these deep issues of Theology, but I make it my concern to live a Romans 14 attitude in this area. Especially as it relates to me being the “child” in the faith.
As far as my bretheren are concerned I am sure that they each hold a valid understanding backed by the Scriptures. However I do not fully understand the TOTALITY of these Doctrines, apart from the fact that NCT is a completely amiss Theology. I definately do NOT believe ANY of my brethren or I would ever ascribe to it.
I guess we can learn from Church History that even great “Church fathers” had some Un-Biblical Theology, for example Luther who could possibly have been taken by NCT due to his personal Anti-Semetic views… Perhaps?
John Piper has said it well when said:(From my memory – not directly qouted)
When my mind cannot comprehend a Biblical doctrine, then I do not assume the Bible to be in error, but my human understanding is in error, because of the limitation in my understanding and my fallen nature.
The point being we MUST study Scripture to know Who our LORD is, but we will as humans not in this age be able to ABSOLUTELY know ALL the mysteries and FULLNESS of God.
May I suggest a next set of discussions on the nature of Spiritual Israel and it’s association with the Church? As seen from Romans 9-11?
And thank you for bearing with me. I pray and ask your forgiveness if my comments suggested that anything was not dealt with appropriately, this is not my intent. I guess when you know a person’s Theology, you may assume others do too, and this has been my error.
With love in the grace, mercy & compassionate cre of our Almighty LORD God Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit, our Redeemer.