Regarding the first point Dr. Lightfoot asserts: 

“The first is refuted by a large number of examples.  St. Paul, for instance, describes it as the special privilege of the Jews that they had the keeping of ‘the oracles of God’ (Rom. iii. 2).  Can we suppose that he meant anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures by this expression?  Is it possible that he would exclude the books of Genesis, of Joshua, of Samuel and Kings, or only include such fragments of them as professed to give the direct sayings of God?  Would he, or would he not, comprise under the term the account of the creation and fall (1 Cor. xi. 8 sq.), of the wanderings in the wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 sq.), of Sarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21 sq.)?  Does not the main part of his argument in the very next chapter (Rom. iv.) depend more on the narrative of God’s dealings than His words?  Again, when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers to ‘the first principles of the oracles of God’ (v. 12), his meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the Divine teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct precepts of the Old Testament.  But if the language of the New Testament writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with their contemporary Philo.  In one place, he speaks of the words in Deut. x. 9, ‘The Lord is his inheritance,’ as an ‘oracle’ ([Greek:  logion]); in another he quotes as an ‘oracle’ ([Greek:  logion]) the narrative in Gen. iv. 15:  ’The Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.’ [125:3] From this and other passages it is clear that with Philo an ‘oracle’ is a synonyme for a Scripture.  Similarly Clement of Rome writes:  ’Ye know well the sacred Scriptures, and have studied the oracles of God;’ [125:4] and immediately he recalls to their mind the account in Deut. ix. 12 sq., Exod. xxxii. 7 sq., of which the point is not any Divine precept or prediction, but the example of Moses.  A few years later Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who ’pervert the oracles of the Lord.” [126:1]

He then goes on to refer to Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Basil, but I need not follow him to these later writers, but confine myself to that which I have quoted.

“When Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans iii. 2, ’They were entrusted with the oracles of God,’ can he mean anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures, including the historical books?” argues Dr. Lightfoot.  I maintain, on the contrary, that he certainly does not refer to a collection of writings at all, but to the communications or revelations of God, and, as the context shows, probably more immediately to the Messianic prophecies.  The advantage of the Jews, in fact, according to Paul here, was that to them were first communicated the Divine oracles:  that they were made the medium of God’s utterances to mankind.  There seems almost an echo of the