Yes this is true and I have already shown from the scriptures why by showing a number of things I have been sharing with you already. These include;
1. Israel of the old covenant came as a result of God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that he would make their seed (decendence) a great nation. This was Israel of the flesh born of the seed of Abraham in fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham in the old covenant.
The part that you have not picked up on though is what I have also been sharing with you in a linked scripture study of the
origins of the name of “Israel” in the bible that you said you read. That…
2. The name “Israel” was only ever a name given by God to His people
who believe and follow what God’s Word says. The name “Israel” given by God to His people is independent of the covenants as it is only a name given to all those who believe and follow what Gods’ Word says in both the old and the new covenants. God first gave the name “Israel” to Jacob who was outside of both the old and the new covenants (Genesis 32:24-28). The covenants simply define who the name of God’s people is applied to at any given point in time, but the name “Israel” is only a name given by God to all those who believe and follow Gods’ Word.
So I've got to make it clear at this point what I see to be wrong. First, the Mosaic covenant doesn't define who Israel is since, as you said, Israel predates the covenant. There was a definition of "Israel" before the Mosaic covenant was given. It included Jacob and his descendants. If it meant "all those who believe and follow what Gods’ Word says in both the old and the new covenants," then Jacob wouldn't have been "Israel" since he wasn't part of the old
or new covenant. Rather, "Israel" was a name given to Jacob himself, making his descendants the "children of Israel," also known as Israelites. Their nation was also called Israel.
Perhaps the most obvious way to show that Israel doesn't always refer to "all those who believe and follow what Gods’ Word says" is to remind ourselves that Israel
hasn't always believed and followed what God's word says!
"Who gave Jacob for plunder, and
Israel to the robbers? Was it not the LORD, He against whom
we have sinned? For they
would not walk in His ways,
Nor were they obedient to His law" (Isaiah 42:24, NKJV, emphasis mine).
"And He said to me: 'Son of man, I am sending you to the
children of Israel, to
a rebellious nation that has
rebelled against Me; they and their fathers
have transgressed against Me to this very day'" (Ezekiel 2:3, NKJV, emphasis mine).
"But to
Israel he [Isaiah] says: 'All day long I have stretched out My hands To
a disobedient and contrary people'" (Romans 10:21, NKJV, emphasis mine).
This makes it clear that one sense of "Israel" is a nation, which often was even "a rebellious nation." This is why I said one sense of Israel is "the physical descendants of Abraham (i.e., those he physically is the ancestor of, regardless of whether they were obedient)." They may at times be obedient or disobedient, but what made them "Israel" was their ancestry to Abraham (or more specifically, to Jacob). Since you said, "That is exactly what I am saying and this is demonstrated in the scriptures already provided," hopefully you agree that this is one definition of Israel, and that Israel isn't "
only a name given by God to all those who believe and follow what God’s Word says" (emphasis mine), as you've claimed. The verses quoted above show that simply is not the case.
There is another sense of Israel given (though it isn't the only sense). Since most people from national Israel weren't coming to Christianity, but instead Gentiles were, this could lead some to fear that Christianity was looking more pagan than Jewish. Paul assured his readers in Romans 9:6, "But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are
not all Israel who are
of Israel" (NKJV, emphasis mine). This makes clear that there's another sense of "Israel," a spiritual "Israelite" or "Jew." Who are included in this sense? I'd agree with your definition: "all those who believe and follow what God’s Word says." That isn't the "only" sense, but it is a sense. Romans 2:28-29 is another such passage.
So which Israel was the Israel that God gave the Sabbath to as a sign distinguishing them? According to Nehemiah, it's the Israel that was promised the physical land of the Cannanites, Hittites, Amorites, etc. (Nehemiah 9:7-8), the Israel that was led out of Egyptian slavery (Nehemiah 9:9-10), the Israel that crossed the sea (Nehemiah 9:11) and was led by pillars of cloud and fire (Nehemiah 9:12), that came to Mount Sinai for the laws and sabbaths to be "given" and "made known" (Nehemiah 9:13-14), the Israel that was told to possess the land (Nehemiah 9:15),
and yes, the Israel that rebelled (Nehemiah 9:16-18). Is this the Israel that references "all those who believe and follow what God’s Word says"? No, it's the Israel that, in my words, "refers to the physical descendants of Abraham (i.e., those he physically is the ancestor of, regardless of whether they were obedient)," a definition that's part of "exactly" what you said you agree with.
So with this in mind, do you agree that Nehemiah 9:14 teaches that the Sabbath was given as a "sign" specifically for the nation of Israel (i.e., those Abraham physically is the ancestor of, regardless of whether they were obedient)? If so, then do you at least agree that the
Gentile nations outside Israel weren't commanded to keep the Sabbath? The Sabbath couldn't be a
covenant sign between
God and
Israel (the nation) if it were already for everyone else anyway, right?
What we are in agreement in with your claims here is that the Sabbath was given to old covenant Israel as they left the land of Egypt. What we are
not in agreement with is to your claims that the Sabbath was
only given to Isreal in the old covenant. This is because you seem to be ignoring that Jesus said that the Sabbath was
made for
mankind in Mark 2:27. According to the scriptures, as was shown earlier, from the very words of Jesus the Sabbath was made for man (mankind ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444
human beings) *
Mark 2:27. The scriptures do not say anywhere that the Sabbath was made for Jews or physical Israel in
Mark 2:27.
So what you're saying here is that although the Sabbath was given to Israel, it wasn't given only to Israel because of Mark 2:27. Are you suggesting it was given twice, then?
A lot of the Mark 2:27 arguments claiming we must keep the weekly Sabbath would also prove
other Old Testament practices to be binding today. If Mark 2:27 proves a separate "giving" (even though we've already established that the time something's "given" is not the same as when it's "made") simply because it says the Sabbath was made for "man" (humans), then are you going to also say that physical circumcision is also not given "only" to Israel since physical circumcision would happen to "man" (humans) according to John 7:22?
If Jesus was stating that the Sabbath was made for the Jews, he would have used the Greek word Ἰουδαῖος (Ioudaîos; G2453) or for Israel he would have said Ἰσραήλ (Israḗl | G2474). Fact is though he specifically used the Greek word for
human beings or mankind (ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444). So this right from the start has you reading into the scripture of
Mark 2:27 what the scriptures are not saying or teaching.
Again, the logic would prove circumcision. Let's replace "Sabbath" in the quote above with "physical circumcision" and replace "Mark 2:27" with "John 7:22" and see what happens: "If Jesus was stating that
physical circumcision was made for the Jews, he would have used the Greek word Ἰουδαῖος (Ioudaîos; G2453) or for Israel he would have said Ἰσραήλ (Israḗl | G2474). Fact is though he specifically used the Greek word for
human beings or mankind (ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444). So this right from the start has you reading into the scripture of
John 7:22 what the scriptures are not saying or teaching."
Isn't it clear, then, that the logic above is flawed. Just because Jesus used the word for human beings in Mark 2:27
and in John 7:22 when He could have used Ἰουδαῖος (Ioudaîos; G2453) or Ἰσραήλ (Israḗl | G2474)
in either verse, doesn't prove the application is broader than just Israel
in either verse!
The only thing that's reading into the Scriptures is to presume that Jesus can't use the word "man" when speaking specifically of the Israelites.
The evidence of this is further provided in
Genesis 1:26-31 and
Genesis 2:1-3 where God created the Sabbath for
mankind ἄνθρωπος; ánthrōpos G444 human beings. As Jesus says on the “seventh day” of the creation week. According to the scriptures when God created the Sabbath on the “seventh day” of the creation week, there was
no Abraham,
no Isaac,
no Jacob,
no Moses,
no Jew,
no Israel,
no law,
no sin and
no plan of salvation given. There was only Adam and Eve representing the first of all mankind made in the image of God created on the 6th day of the creation week (
Genesis 1:26-31) that God made the Sabbath for on the “seventh day” of the creation week that he blessed and set aside as a holy day of rest for all mankind *
Genesis 2:1-3.
And again, the logic proves physical circumcision. I could say the evidence of physical circumicision being binding is further provided in Genesis 17:10-14. Now, there
was Abraham when circumcision was instituted, but it still could be said that there was
no Jacob,
no Moses,
no Jew,
no Israel.
But does this prove that physical circumcision is for everyone? No! Why, because it was a "sign" of a "covenant" between God on the one hand and Abraham and his descendants on the other (Genesis 17:10-11). Circumcising the foreskin separated Abraham's lineage from that of other nations, so it was a "sign" (Genesis 17:11, NKJV), being only for the ones the sign was commanded for--Abraham and his descendants, not everyone else. (The only exception, of course, would be if people wanted to proselytize, which would essentially "make" them part of Abraham's people anyway.)
In the same way, the Sabbath was a covenant sign between
God and the physical nation of Israel that was brought out of Egypt (as shown in Exodus 31:17, Nehemiah 9:14, Ezekiel 20:12, and even the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5:15). So again, the Sabbath couldn't be a
covenant sign between
God and
Israel (i.e., the Israel that was brought out of Egypt) if it were already for everyone else anyway, right?
According to the scriptures it is Jesus that said the Sabbath was
made for all
mankind (Mark 2:27). So, the subject matter and application and word meanings here in
Mark 2:27 is to [1].
the Sabbath, [2].
made (creation) and [3].
for mankind.
Again, the same logic would make physical circumcision binding on us. In fact, I could make a better case in John 7:22 because it actually does use the word "given" instead of "made." So If I replace "Mark 2:27" with "John 7:22," replace "the Sabbath" with "circumcision," and replace "made" with "given," here's what your quote would say: "According to the scriptures it is Jesus that said
circumcision was
given for all
mankind (
John 7:22). So, the subject matter and application and word meanings here in
John 7:22 is to [1].
circumcision, [2].
given and [3].
for mankind."
Again, what proves too much proves nothing, so the logic here is false. Also, the "mankind" part is false since Jesus said "man" (
anthropos), which doesn't have to mean "mankind," and we know that
anthropos can be limited to Israelites (see also Hebrews 5:1-3 and Hebrews 7:28). Replacing "man" with "all mankind" just because it
sometimes means "all mankind" changes the word of God and, if logically consistent, would make
circumcision for all mankind from Adam till now (John 7:22) just as much as it would do so for
the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).
As shown through the scriptures many times now the Sabbath was made for mankind at the “seventh day” of the creation week where God set aside “the seventh day” and blessed the “seventh day” and made the “seventh day” of the creation week a “holy day” of rest for
all mankind. Now all of this is God’s Word so for me, it is presumption to assume that God made the Sabbath for man who was created on the “sixth day” of the creation week in
Genesis 1:26-31, then God making the Sabbath for man on the “seventh day” of the creation week where he set the “seventh day”of the week aside from every other days of the week and blessed it and made it a holy day for mankind only
not to give it to him? That in my view would be presumption if God’s people already knew God’s laws as shown in
Genesis 26:5.
You say it would be presumption for God to set aside the Sabbath but not give it to man till later. But isn't it also presumption to assume He must give something the same time He makes it? We've discussed this already.
What's in bold is presumption: "And on the seventh day God ended
not only His work which He had done
but also the work of the man Adam and his wife Eve in tending the garden, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done
, and commanded the man and woman to do likewise. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He,
the man Adam, and his wife Eve rested from
not only all His work which God had created and made
but also all their work which they tended to in the garden" (Genesis 2:2-3, NKJV
+ presumption).
What isn't presumption is to say that God rested in Genesis 2:2-3 and that He "gave" the Sabbath in the time of Moses (Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14), since that's literally what the Scriptures say. It's also necessarily implied that if the Sabbath was given to Israel at the time of Moses,
then they didn't already have it at the time it was given to them. So even
if you could prove it was given to Adam (again, a presumption not stated in Scripture), it must've fallen out of use by the time of Moses, being forgotten--and so much so that it had to be
re-given at the time of Moses. (Again, this is presumption.)
Regardless of whether man ever had the Sabbath before Moses or not, it's clear they didn't have it when he was born, and that then when it was given, it was given for, and
only for, Israel. Why "only"? This is because the Sabbath was a "sign" given specifically for Israel (the nation brought out of Egypt) according to Exodus 31:17, Nehemiah 9:14, Ezekiel 20:12, and the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5:15.
Now with the above in mind I believe that the Sabbath was indeed made for Israel because “Israel” is simply a name given by God given to all those who believe and follow Gods’ Word and is independent of the old and new covenants. Gods’ “Israel” is simply all those who believe and follow God’s Word.
more to come...
Again, that definition of Israel isn't "simply" or the "only" definition. Earlier in this post, I show 1) that this isn't the "only" definition, and 2) that the specific definition of "Israel" under consideration when they were given the Sabbath and the Mosaic covenant was
the other sense, "the physical descendants of Abraham (i.e., those he physically is the ancestor of, regardless of whether they were obedient)."
