Obama’s Abortion Extremism

Sen. Barack Obama’s views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.
Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals – who aggressively promote Obama’s candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

What is going on here?

I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama’s self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama’s abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice.”

According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers’ money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people – Thomas Jefferson was one – reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn’t think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as “pro-choice”? Of course we would not. It wouldn’t matter to us that they were “personally opposed” to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were “unnecessary,” or that they wouldn’t dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said “Against slavery? Don’t own one.” We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being “pro-abortion” and being “pro-choice.” Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called “pro-choice,” then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate infanticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, “forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.” In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama’s extremism. He has promised that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed “fundamental right” to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, “a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons.” In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.”

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many “pro-choice” legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a “punishment” that she should not endure. He has stated that women’s equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing “pro-choice” about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is “pro-choice” rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist’s unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

You may be thinking, it can’t get worse than that. But it does.

For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President’s restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents’ decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This “clone and kill” bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Can it get still worse? Yes.

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

This ultimate manifestation of Obama’s extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.

They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama’s injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.

They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! “pro-choice”-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.

This is delusional.

We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood’s own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, “abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased.” In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that “abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent.” No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies – so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.

But for a moment let’s suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama’s proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.

Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.

But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama’s America is one in which being human just isn’t enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama’s America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: “that question is above my pay grade.” It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator’s pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy – and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

In the end, the efforts of Obama’s apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn’t even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.

Copyright 2008 The Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.

Acorns, Israel, and the FBI

Last night was fun for me. I spoke to a group of young people about God’s choice for Israel and man’s rejection of the Lord’s Anointed. There are so many examples of this in scripture. One being 1 Sam 8:7 where the Lord gives a stinging word to the nation of Israel through Samuel the priest, “ they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, for Me to not reign over them“.

Before speaking, a family came up to me and gave us some bread and some pictures they had drawn with Hebrew words on them; as far as I know, they didn’t know I was speaking on Israel. It was really a blessing to me and encouraged me with what I was about to share. Towards the end, the elections were brought up and the subject of foreign policy of the candidates towards Israel. I think it boils down to this – if Obama wins the election, America is going to be in a tough spot in her relations with Israel and, more importantly, with the Lord.

A recent dream from Julie Meyer while she was in England this last week:

I was watching John McCain run around a track.  He was running very very slow and seemed a out of breath. Then a coach who was a black man, with a whistle….like he was a football coach.  He had shorts on and was kind of running along with McCain.  He said to John McCain, “You are down for the count, but not out.’  Then he started shouting, ‘Go  Go  Go  Go’

The dream changed suddenly and I was walking around in Obama’s house, except it was empty.  It had nothing in it, so I started opening up closet doors, and as I opened the closet doors all of these acorns fell out of all his closets. (I did not get this part of the dream, as I was out of the country, and I saw the news last night with all of the ‘ACORN’ stuff going on)

Check this for the current ACORN investigation of voter fraud by the FBI.  This man was bribed by ACORN and registered to vote 71 times. Click here to see that Obama’s campaign denies that he worked with or for ACORN, while here is an article that says otherwise. Foxnews also did a run up on his involvement in with ACORN. I know this is a lot of links and I wouldn’t have posted them had it not been for Julie’s dream.

Interesting stuff…

Pray: God exposes darkness in both candidates; that both candidates come to salvation and the knowledge of Jesus; that God would preserve Israel and America’s relationship with Israel in light of the upcoming elections.

Interpreting the Times

Crisis is like a ray of light upon our darkened motives. Many think that because America is a superpower among the nations today, she will be tomorrow. Many think it odd that there isn’t clear reference to America in prophetic scripture and they attempt to squeeze America in. Sadly, the misinterpretation of scripture has lead many to a false hope and sense of security in America and her motives.

The primary vehicle of interpretation in world events (including religious, economic, and political) is the media. The media reports, without bias (yeah right), the events that have happened and then interprets those events through their programs and articles. They seek to shape, and have effectively done so, the outlook and perspective of Americans. Though sometimes what they report is true, they can still manipulation desicions and events by what they don’t report. For them, it’s more than simply “getting the truth” out there; it’s about retaining control. If something they report will cause them to lose control or make them unpopular, they simply won’t report it.

Think of what the media (including cnn, abcnews, bbc, foxnews, espn, drudge) is actually doing – they’re telling you what happened yesterday. There are billions of dollars invested into a system that has produced a reactionary culture. We can’t see past today. Therefore, America has chosen to live today based on what happened yesterday. Today, people all across this nation will base base their choices, perceptions, and emotions on the 900-point stock market gain from yesterday.

I’m coming to realize that prophetic revelation and a steadfastness in the Word are incredibly valuable. It empowers the heart to see past today and into the plan and will of God. When we see His plan, when we understand His will, it causes our hearts to remain steadfast in the midst of trial.

Daniel tells of a people of understanding who “shall instruct many”(Dan. 11:33). These people aren’t reacting to the crisis in the earth, but they are empowered by boldness through revelation. The Lord intended believers to know what was going to happen before it actually happened. That is why there are 100+ passages in the bible that tell of end times. God wants His people to have understanding and to be prepared. One of the primary functions of the prayer movement in the end times will be the interpretation of the times. This will be used as a tool primarily to remain faithful to the Lord, and secondarily as a witness to unbelievers concerning the coming of Jesus.

What has been your response to the recent events?

Yesterday’s post?

This morning I drove up to the gas station to get some real coffee. It actually isn’t that bad (as I’m still drinking it); the undertone flavors, however, were reminiscent of used socks. As I headed to the checkout counter, I spot the USA Today sitting on a pile near the register. My eyes shot to the headline “Fear’s a slippery slope for stocks”. Apparently the writer for USA today and myself are on the same wavelength. Mine from a biblical perspective (respectively) and theirs from a liberal media perspective (respectively). The result? Some of the same language used. Interesting.

Yesterday’s quote from my post: “I do understand one thing that is driving the economy into a recession and that is fear.”

And: I have sense that if America votes according to fear of loss we will be further down a slippery slope in 2 years.

Granted, this paper wasn’t from today. Being Sunday, I didn’t want to lug a 2-foot-thick paper back to the prayer rooom. But I can honestly say that I didn’t read the USA Today when I wrote my post, and I didn’t know about the article.

A couple excerpts from that article (taken from USA Today – 10/10)

“The S&P is on track for its worst year sine 1931.”

The Dow’s 23.0% drop in nine trading days since the House of Representatives’ initial “no” vote on the bailout equals the drop in the Oct. 19, 1987, stock market crash.

Ah man! I just spilled my sock coffee all over my prized paper!!! Oh well, so much for my prophetic idol to legitimize “Isaac B Ministries”. When I went to get paper towels, I had an epiphany that “Automatic” paper towel dispensers should have an emergency switch to dose out paper towels in a frenzy instead of 1 towel every 5 minutes…

Economics and fear

I’ve been observing, as many of you have, the recent economic crisis in America. What is happening will be remembered in American economic history. Our children’s children will surely read about the stock markets of 2008. I don’t claim to understand everything that is going on, it is a complicated situation with multiple factors, causes, and claims.

I do understand one thing that is driving the economy into a recession and that is fear. I find it ironic that this machine that we call the “American economy” can be shaken by fear, mistrust, and lack of faith in the system. This means that the money out there, isn’t really money at all but simply numbers and human faith. And if I believe in you and you believe in me then everything works smoothly. The book “The Emperors New Clothes” comes to mind. I can honestly tell you, as a husband and father of 2, that I have had to battle real fear in my heart due to the recent economic circumstances.

During the Presidential Nominee debate last Tuesday, questions were directed by American citizens to the nominees. As I observed the questions, and sensed their frustration, the message that became clear was, “How are you [McCain or Obama] going to protect my money?” Do I blame them? Have hundreds of thousands of my dollars been instantly liquidated? No. But I have sense that if America votes according to fear of loss we will be further down a slippery slope in 2 years. Why? Because it’s this exact fear that is crippling the system. How can we expect the cause to save the effect?

For wisdom is a defense, even as money is a defense; but the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom preserveth the life of him that hath it. Ecc 7:12

I want to pose a question to all of us: “Will America’s morality be sacrificed if her bank accounts are?”

The Olive Reckoning

Okay so I’ve just finished my olive search, find, and tasting. Come to find out, the grocery store up the road has an impressive selection of Mediterranean cuisine. Okay, cuisine might be an overstatement, mostly it was just an olive bar with some red peppers, tomatoes, and something that should be illegal called Bocconini.

The results are as follows:

Garlic Stuffed- This was a large green olive stuffed with garlic (duh), grown in the northern regiImage and video hosting by TinyPicon of Greece. It had a very firm texture. After tasting, I was immediately greeted with an ocean wave of salt. I’m sure if a cow ate one of these olives it would immediately turn into beef jerky.  While the smell reminded me of the concentrated scent of every YMCA locker room in the Northwest, it didn’t taste as half as bad. Rating: 2 olives out of 5.

Stuffed Green Mamouth- ah yes, the love of the martini…lover. Think of the speared olive resting in the delicate martini glass of a James Bond girl. A large green olive with a sweet, meaty, pimento (red thingy that pokes out). I’ve decided that from now I will call the pimento the “Olive prairie dog”, because most people don’t know what pimento means. It was pretty much the same as the garlic olive; salty, green, big, and terrible. I wouldn’t recommend eating this olive before or during a first date. Rating: 2 olives out of 5.

Calabrese Style- a spicy styled olive, its heat derived from a chili marinade. This one had a “pit” in it. Now, I’d like to talk to the Senior Marketing Manager of Olives Worldwide and tell him that they shouldn’t have named the “seed” a “pit”. A pit, in my mind, is a trap that is deep and dark; a pit is something to apply deodorant to; a pit is not something I want to encounter while tasting food. This olive was like biting into a block of salt only to find an acorn in the middle. If the goal of this olive was to hide the spicy flavor with a metric ton of sodium, they were spot on. Rating: 1 olive out of 5

Kalamata – I saved the Kalamata for last because the first three were all green in color; which in my mind, olives should look like. However, the Kalamata is deep purple, which in my mind, olives shouldn’t look like. It had a much softer texture than the previous, and the taste was surprisingly the best of the 4 varieties I tried. Rating: 3 olives out of 5

My overall conclusion is that I can’t imagine where these odd flavors would fit into my diet and somehow add to the enjoyment of my food consumption. I’ll leave the olives to cultured folk for now.

Talk of Olives, Talk of Trees

I love Romans. But first,

Olive Update:I still have yet to commandeer a fine olive with which to enlighten my ignoble thoughts of this fruit. Sorry olive lovers.

Olives in Jesus’ day were a valuable commodity. They were used to make oil, medicine, and just plain eatin’.  An olive tree could take up to 15 years to produce fruit, and therefore, much thought went into the growing and cultivation of such trees. This tree is the zenith of plant longevity, some being dated as old as 1,500 years! From what I gather, our Middle Eastern friends are among top olive masters in the world.  I guess that’s not an odd thing, I mean, in Aladdin, there’s all sorts of dates, figs, and pistachios being sold in Agraba. Why not throw in some salty olives to munch on while you traverse the city?

When Paul talks about Israel and her ultimate destiny of salvation in Romans 11, he uses a metaphor drawn from this common tree of the day. He tells of some of the branches (the Jews) being broken off because of their unbelief and that we (Gentiles), being a wild olive tree (some wilder than others- ha), have been grafted in becoming partakers of the “root and fatness.”  Just say this phrase aloud to yourself, “I am a partaker of the root and fatness.” If it doesn’t make you laugh, go drink a bunch of coffee and try it again.

Paul calls Gentiles the “wild olive tree.” Some sources say that wild olive trees do not bear fruit. Which would make sense if you think of the majority of Old Testament Gentiles in the spiritual sense of bearing fruit. Mostly, they received a revelation of the righteous judgment of God (Rom 2:5). Of all the revelation to receive, this is one I’d rather be watching than experiencing. Other (more reliable) sources claim that wild olive trees bear fruit but it is much smaller than a cultivated tree. A man who grows olive trees in Tuscany Italy tells of his olive tree in which he actually grafted wild olive branches into a cultivated one. The result? An olive tree with branches that have smaller leaves and fruit.

I love this. Why? Because even though it is one tree, there are still branches that bear distinct fruit. We are one body in Christ, yet constitute separate parts that make up its whole. As we have been grafted into the root and fatness of the olive tree, we as Gentiles of various nations retain a calling before the Lord that is unique and valid.

More importantly, the natural branches of the olive tree do not change in their nature, value, or distinction. The Jewish people still retain their calling and gifts that were given by Lord. Not just calling and gifts, but the are a piece in the irrevocable, eternal plan, that was hidden in the heart of God from eternity past. One might become haughty and think himself a better branch than he who was broken off. Yet, the Lord is faithful to correct this unbridled arrogance and strengthen us in warning, “Do not be haughty, but fear.” The sting of the rod on our hind parts quickly subsides and, by the grace of God, something wise and prudent is implanted into our spirits – God has a future plan for the whole nation of Israel.  Therefore, let us join with Paul’s desire for all Israel to be saved; let us join with the Man Jesus who makes intercession for ones as these.  Let all of Israel be saved.