Who is Israel?

[All Becomes New]

You're dodging.

What makes it redundant?

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15,

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ."

Is this a redundant statement?

When Paul writes in Romans 10,

"For the Scripture says, 'Everyone who believes in Him will not be put to shame.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing His riches on all who call on Him. For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"

Is this redundant?

So what makes Hebrews 8:11 redundant?

"And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest."

In 1 Corinthians 15, "all" is all who are in Christ. In Romans 10, "all" is all who have faith in Christ. In Hebrews 8, "all" is all who have received the New Covenant of Christ. In each case it's the same thing. It's all about Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

Paul is not giving a prophecy that changes a very fundamental thing about God's relation to humanity.

1 Corinthians 15:23 is a point in my favor rather than yours. Firstfruits are meaningless without a Jewish backdrop. It emphasizes Jesus' Jewishness and that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah first and foremost. It's also not redundant because Paul is explaining something without talking in a circle. You take Hebrews 8 to be talking in a circle. "All who will know the Lord are saved" is a redundant statement. Why say it at all? Hasn't that always been true? If so, what makes it prophetic?

Regarding Romans 10, you seem to think that I think Jews are somehow more saved or something like that. That is not something I have ever said. In context, Paul is saying all are saved equally, which I believe. It's also not redundant at all because Paul is describing what saves a person. It is not the same as saying, "All who are saved are saved," which is what your view of Hebrews 8 amounts to.

 

[Guojing]

In the same way that God did not turn away from the Gentile nations, but has always been long-suffering; so God has not turned away from unbelieving Jews, but is also long-suffering.

The answer to God's patience and long-suffering is found throughout Scripture, but one of the best places comes from the words of St. Peter, that God is not slow as men count slowness, but is patient, because He desires that all come to repentance and be saved.

God, at no point, has rejected any people or persons; it is the will of God that all be saved. Which is why we see example after example of the non-Jew coming to faith through the Old Testament, because it was always about faith. And it's why Paul remains hopeful, in the God of all mercy, who suffered long in the unbelief of the world, and even in the faithlessness of Israel, who would embrace the Greeks, would in no way reject the Jews; and so that, ultimately, all having been consigned to disobedience means that God has mercy on all (Romans 11:32), even as Paul had said way back in the beginning of the epistle, "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God to save all who believe, the Jew first and also the Greek". Because the whole point of Romans is the universal problem of sin; the universal condemnation under the Law, and the universal mercy of God through the Gospel to all sinners.

This is why reading Romans all the way through is helpful.

-CryptoLutheran

So my point to him was that his conclusion "I'll note that those of Israel who convert to Christ, are no longer of Israel, because we are all born again, our fatherhood has been changed" cannot be correct, simply because Paul used the present tense in that verse.

 

[Guojing]

And now you are just making things up.

-CryptoLutheran

That is the literal meaning of Hebrews 8:8-12, which is given in the future tense.

 

[Guojing]

Was God present among His people post-Exile?

He was not physically in Jerusalem post-exile during the OT.

If you think he was, present the scripture.

So the nations haven't come to know Israel's God through Jesus?

-CryptoLutheran

No.

Again, Zechariah 8:23 is obviously not happening now, nor ever in the past, literally.

No one today is going to Jerusalem by "taking hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you"

Once you are willing to adopt a literal explanation, all these questions of yours regarding Zechariah 8, have clear answers.

 

[Guojing]

They shall lay hold of the skirt of one man who is a Jew

Jerome: “That is, of the Lord and Saviour, of whom it is said, “A prince shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He shall come, for whom it is laid up, and for Him shall the Gentiles wait” Genesis 49:8-10; for “there shall be a rod of Jesse, and He who shall arise to rule over the Gentiles, to Him shall the Gentiles seek” Isaiah 11:10. And when they shall lay hold of Him, they shall desire to tread in His steps, since God is with Him. Or else, whosoever shall believe out of all nations, shall lay hold of a man who is a Jew, the Apostles who are from the Jews, and shall say, Let us go with you; for we have known through the prophets and from the voice of all the Scriptures, that the Son of God, Christ, God and Lord, is with you. Where there is a most manifest prophecy, and the coming of Christ and His Apostles and the faith of all nations is preached, let us seek for nothing more.”​

Cyril: “Christ turning our sorrow into joy and a feast and good days and gladness, and transferring lamentation into cheerfulness, the accession to the faith and union to God by sanctification in those called to salvation shall not henceforth be individually; but the cities shall exhort each other thereto, and all nations shall come in multitudes, the later ever calling out to those before them, “I too will go.” For it is written, “iron sharpeneth iron, so doth a man the countenence of another” Proverbs 27:17. For the zeal of some is ever found to call forth others to fulfill what is good. But what is the aim proposed to the cities, that is, the Gentiles? “To entreat and to seek the face of the Lord,” that is, Christ, who is the exact image of God the Father, and, as is written, “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His Person” Heb_1:3, of whom also the divine David saith, “Shew Thy countenance to Thy servant” Psalm 119:135.​

[quoted from Albert Barnes's notes on the bible]

and your point is?

 

[Guojing]

I addressed the specific errors you were making in your attempt at a literal interpretation of that entire chapter. In what respect do you think my post did not address your interpretation of v. 23?

Zechariah 8:23 is obviously not happening now, nor ever in the past, literally.

No one today is going to Jerusalem by "taking hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you"

You did not address this at all.

 

[Guojing]

God has not cast away His people. His people left Him, and He maintains the offer of repentance. Are you not familiar with that which is written in the Prophets? Or the corroborating statements by Christ the Lord?

But do you not notice Paul used the present tense in that verse. Do you think he will agree with your conclusion?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

and your point is?

The point is obvious in the post that you quoted.

 

[Guojing]

The point is obvious in the post that you quoted.

You expect people to read your mind?

 

[The Liturgist]

You expect people to read your mind?

No, just our posts.

You brushed off my post and claimed not to be able to understand it in general - if you had instead asked specific questions about parts of my post that had confused you, I would have endeavored to answer those, and would have taken as much time as needed to accomplish this, but I feel to a large extent that you didn’t try to do this either with my post or with the reply of our friend @Xeno.of.athens .

I should stress I am not accusing you of dishonesty - rather, I am suggesting that you try again with both our posts, and if there is something you don’t understand, you can always ask us to explain it individually, but when you reject the entire post as being impossible to understand, that is deeply frustrating, as it would appear you are simply unwilling to take the time to read it. And I would also stress that you could, if the grammar is really that hard, use a large langauge model like chat GPT to convert my writing into Simplfiied English, and then review its response and your conclusions based on its response with me, if you really are completely unable to understand what I wrote - and in that manner I would be in a position to reply to whatever objections you might have, and also to notice if ChatGPT or another AI had mangled the meaning of an important technical point, and thus to correct the issue on that manner.

However, I would note that your own posts have a level of literary sophistication that suggests great fluency in the English language - indeed I would assume you are a native speaker with at least some college education based on your own writing, so proceding from that basis, I have no idea why you should find my writing or that of @Xeno.of.athens to be impenetrable?

 

[Guojing]

No, just our posts.

You brushed off my post and claimed not to be able to understand it in general - if you had instead asked specific questions about parts of my post that had confused you, I would have endeavored to answer those, and would have taken as much time as needed to accomplish this, but I feel to a large extent that you didn’t try to do this either with my post or with the reply of our friend @Xeno.of.athens .

I should stress I am not accusing you of dishonesty - rather, I am suggesting that you try again with both our posts, and if there is something you don’t understand, you can always ask us to explain it individually, but when you reject the entire post as being impossible to understand, that is deeply frustrating, as it would appear you are simply unwilling to take the time to read it. And I would also stress that you could, if the grammar is really that hard, use a large langauge model like chat GPT to convert my writing into Simplfiied English, and then review its response and your conclusions based on its response with me, if you really are completely unable to understand what I wrote - and in that manner I would be in a position to reply to whatever objections you might have, and also to notice if ChatGPT or another AI had mangled the meaning of an important technical point, and thus to correct the issue on that manner.

However, I would note that your own posts have a level of literary sophistication that suggests great fluency in the English language - indeed I would assume you are a native speaker with at least some college education based on your own writing, so proceding from that basis, I have no idea why you should find my writing or that of @Xeno.of.athens to be impenetrable?

I asked you specifically about Zechariah 8:23 a number of times already, and its a very short point I made.

Still waiting for your reply.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is the literal meaning of Hebrews 8:8-12, which is given in the future tense.

Did you happen to notice that Hebrews 8 is quoting the Prophet Jeremiah, and saying that the New Covenant has already been established?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

No.

So you don't know God through His Son?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Guojing]

So you don't know God through His Son?

-CryptoLutheran

As I already said

Many Christians who are saved, still need to go to churches to hear a pastor "teaching them about the Lord". Without that, they do not know anything about what God is teaching them today.

I am sure you are aware of the existence of such Christians in every country.

 

[Guojing]

Did you happen to notice that Hebrews 8 is quoting the Prophet Jeremiah, and saying that the New Covenant has already been established?

-CryptoLutheran

Did you even read Hebrews 8:8-13 properly? It is in the future tense, not past.

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

The New Covenant was established at the Crucifixion.

for this is My blood of the New Covenant, that is being poured out for many, for forgiveness of sins;
Matthew 26:28

 

[Guojing]

The New Covenant was established at the Crucifixion.

This where you need to read the KJV, and recognize that Testament is not equivalent to Covenant.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As I already said



I am sure you are aware of the existence of such Christians in every country.

Yep, they're called Christians.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Matthew 26:28 has διαθήκη diathḗkē, dee-ath-ay'-kay; from G1303; properly, a disposition, i.e. (specially) a contract (especially a devisory will):—covenant, testament. The word is translated to "covenant" twenty times in the KJV, and "testament" thirteen times in the KJV. How are you arriving at a distinction?

 

[Guojing]

Matthew 26:28 has διαθήκη diathḗkē, dee-ath-ay'-kay; from G1303; properly, a disposition, i.e. (specially) a contract (especially a devisory will):—covenant, testament. The word is translated to "covenant" twenty times in the KJV, and "testament" thirteen times in the KJV. How are you arriving at a distinction?

Greek does not work like English. The same Greek word, in this case "diathḗkē" can have different meanings, depending on the rest of the words surrounding it.

That is why the KJV translators took care to use covenant in some cases, and testament in others. Hebrews 8-9 is a good example of the different English translation.