Are the Jews Israel, or is the church Israel? Or does it depend on the context of the passage?

[sovereigngrace]

You would at least agree that, before the cross, animals were to be sacrificed for Israel's sins?

Yes. They simply covered sin. Never removed it.

 

[Guojing]

Yes.

So at least we agree on something, alright, let's move on.

 

[Hentenza]

So you still wanna insist that I am interpreting even though you cannot explain how.

Whatever.

I explained how. You rejected it. So be it.

 

[Jan001]

The Church is seen as the new Israel in a spiritual and covenantal sense, not in an ethnic or national one. It is a multi-ethnic, multi-national community united by faith in Jesus Christ, fulfilling the prophetic vision of Israel becoming a blessing to all nations.

I see the New Covenant olive tree to be the Christian people of God, regardless of ethnicity or national boundaries. The first covenant (Old Covenant) was fulfilled (finished, made obsolete) by Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross.

 

[Guojing]

But if we go with your interpretation across scripture and beyond this historical point then Paul is in tension with James and James is in tension with Jesus. That, of course, causes hermeneutical issues that should not be there.

Is this the reason why you cannot accept what James is literally saying in Acts 21:18-25?

That

1. Paul is in tension with James and
2. James is in tension with Jesus.

 

[Hentenza]

Is this the reason why you cannot accept what James is literally saying in Acts 21:18-25?

That

1. Paul is in tension with James and
2. James is in tension with Jesus.

That is what your interpretation does not mine. There is no tension using proper hermeneutical exegesis.

 

[Guojing]

That is what your interpretation does not mine. There is no tension using proper hermeneutical exegesis.

So to understand you correctly, because of what you regard as your "proper hermeneutical exegesis", you are saying the Acts 21:18-25 words cannot be therefore understood in their literal meaning?

 

[Hentenza]

So to understand you correctly, because of what you regard as your "proper hermeneutical exegesis", you are saying the Acts 21:18-25 words cannot be therefore understood in their literal meaning?

I have already been through this a few times. You refuse to understand the historical context. The destruction of the temple and the ejection of the Jews from Jerusalem makes what Jesus said in Matt. 23:38 true. The cultural Jew pushing the law and killing the Christians that lived by faith not by the law finished then. Acts 21 is no longer possible.

 

[Guojing]

I have already been through this a few times. You refuse to understand the historical context. The destruction of the temple and the ejection of the Jews from Jerusalem makes what Jesus said in Matt. 23:38 true. The cultural Jew pushing the law and killing the Christians that lived by faith not by the law finished then. Acts 21 is no longer possible.

When you say Acts 21 is no longer possible, are you answering yes to my clarifying question? I just want to understand where you are coming from.