Are Jews still God's Chosen People ?

Clare73 · Dec 5, 2021

BewareTheLamb said:
Your position does not stand other than on your own view,

Previously addressed.

It stands in the NAS, Amplified, the scholarship of the NIV, etc.

The English translations you mention are highly speculative

Not in the world of Biblical scholarship.

and it seems to me that the translation is set on a particular theology.

Yes, they are set on understanding the OT in the light of the NT, being "set" on NT teaching as it applies to the OT.

you may or may not want to look at the Hebrew use of Nahar.

I might also want consider the scholarship of the NIV translators, who did just that, and more, to arrive at their conclusions.
Since they have more weight in "your understanding vs. their understanding," I accept the nahar of
1 Kings 4:21, 24-25, etc. to be referring to the Euphrates River, as they state that it does, meaning that possession and occupation to the borders of the promise in Genesis 15:8 have been fulfilled.

There is no land promise remaining to anyone other than the possession of the earth by those in Christ, the church.

IN the Greek OT same verse, Euphrates not found, it is translated River -
(1Ki 4:21) AndG2532 SolomonG* wasG3739 rulerG758 inG1722 allG3956 theG3588 kingdomsG932 fromG575 the riverG4215 of the landG1093 of the PhilistinesG* andG2532 untoG2193 the borderG3725 of Egypt.G* AndG2532 they wereG1510.7.6 bringingG4374 gifts,G1435 andG2532 they servedG1398 G3588 SolomonG* allG3956 theG3588 daysG2250 G3588 of his life.G2222 G1473

G4215 - ποταμός
potamós; gen. potamoú, masc. noun from potázō (n.f.), to flow, which is from pótos (G4224), a drinking match. A river, stream (Mar_1:5; Act_16:13; Rev_8:10; Rev_9:14; Rev_16:4, Rev_16:12; Rev_22:1-2; Sept.: Gen_2:10; Gen_15:18; Gen_41:1; Exo_1:22). Homer often uses potamós for the ocean. Spoken of a stream as swollen, overflowing, meaning a torrent, flood (Mat_7:25, Mat_7:27; Luk_6:48-49; 2Co_11:26; Rev_12:15-16 [cf. Sept.: Isa_59:19]). Used allegorically (Joh_7:38).
Deriv.: potamophórētos (G4216), river- borne.

There is in the Hebrew a proper word for Euphrates. (Same happens in the Greek)
ְפַּרת
peraṯ: A proper noun designating Euphrates.

However, NT scholarship finds that the evidence shows perat does not always refer to the Euphrates, as in Jeremiah 36:4, 5, 6, 7, as well as that nahar was understood to mean the Euphrates River in
1 Kings 4:21, 24-25, etc.
I accept the conclusions of their scholarship.

There is no land promise remaining to anyone other than the promise of the earth to those in Christ, Gentile as well as Jew.

I. The name refers to the Euphrates River, a major river ca. 1,800 miles long. The Hebrew name comes from the Akkadian, purattu. It and the Tigris encompass the area of Mesopotamia ("between the rivers"). It has shifted its riverbed several times through the millennia. It begins in modern eastern Turkey and flows through Syria and modern Iraq to the Persian Gulf. It and the Tigris meet shortly before emptying into the gulf. It has seen the rise and fall of villages, cities (e.g. Babylon, Carchemish), and great empires (Assyria, Mitanni, Babylon, Persia, etc.) over the years. It was one of the rivers in the Garden of Eden (Gen_2:14). It was the northernmost boundary of the land God promised to Abraham (Gen_15:8; Deu_1:7). It is sometimes called the "great river" or "the River" (Gen_31:21).
II. It seems to be the name of a city or geographical area (Perath; Jer_13:4-7, NIV). It could possibly refer to the Euphrates River (see A).

Clare73 · Dec 5, 2021

ralliann said:
Can you acknowledge this before we continue?

Scripture teaches that Genesis 15 gives no inheritance to the patriarchs in that covenant. It gives them heirs, but no inheritance.

I can acknowledge that
1) Genesis 17:8, Genesis 26:3, Genesis 35:12 give to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob the promise of the land personally--"to you;"

2) the NT Hebrews 11:13-16 teaches the promise of an "everlasting inheritance" was made to Abraham,
the NT Hebrews 11:13-16, Acts 7:5 teach he did not receive what was promised to him, and
the NT Hebrews 11:13-16 teaches the promise of an "everlasting inheritance" (Genesis 13:15, Genesis 17:8) was fulfilled to him in heavenly land rather than earthly land;

3) the NT Hebrews 11:13-16 teaches the land promise made personally to Abraham (to Isaac and to Jacob) is fulfilled in the heavenly land.

Therefore, I can acknowledge that no land promise remains to Abraham, Isaac or Jacob.

Acts 7:5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.
The above verse acknowledges that despite this truth, God promised to give it to him. Just like God told Abraham, in Genesis 17 he had made him a father of many Nations. The new covenant teaching on this way of speaking, concerns what faith is. The substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen.
* He calls those things which are not, as though they are!!!!! Hope that is seen is no more hope, otherwise why would he yet hope for what he has?..
Romans4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. {before him: or, like unto him }
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.
7 And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Can you acknowledge this before we continue?

Clare73 · Dec 5, 2021

BewareTheLamb said:
There is much that can be said about NIV Scholarship but this is not the place.
You may want to look into the translation debate more in-depth at another time.

I trust the editorship of the NIV translation.

ralliann · Dec 5, 2021

BewareTheLamb said:
Your position does not stand other than on your own view, you may or may not want to look at the Hebrew use of Nahar. The English translations you mention are highly speculative and it seems to me that the translation is set on a particular theology.

IN the Greek OT same verse, Euphrates not found, it is translated River -
(1Ki 4:21) AndG2532 SolomonG* wasG3739 rulerG758 inG1722 allG3956 theG3588 kingdomsG932 fromG575 the riverG4215 of the landG1093 of the PhilistinesG* andG2532 untoG2193 the borderG3725 of Egypt.G* AndG2532 they wereG1510.7.6 bringingG4374 gifts,G1435 andG2532 they servedG1398 G3588 SolomonG* allG3956 theG3588 daysG2250 G3588 of his life.G2222 G1473

G4215 - ποταμός
potamós; gen. potamoú, masc. noun from potázō (n.f.), to flow, which is from pótos (G4224), a drinking match. A river, stream (Mar_1:5; Act_16:13; Rev_8:10; Rev_9:14; Rev_16:4, Rev_16:12; Rev_22:1-2; Sept.: Gen_2:10; Gen_15:18; Gen_41:1; Exo_1:22). Homer often uses potamós for the ocean. Spoken of a stream as swollen, overflowing, meaning a torrent, flood (Mat_7:25, Mat_7:27; Luk_6:48-49; 2Co_11:26; Rev_12:15-16 [cf. Sept.: Isa_59:19]). Used allegorically (Joh_7:38).
Deriv.: potamophórētos (G4216), river- borne.

There is in the Hebrew a proper word for Euphrates. (Same happens in the Greek)
ְפַּרת
peraṯ: A proper noun designating Euphrates.
I. The name refers to the Euphrates River, a major river ca. 1,800 miles long. The Hebrew name comes from the Akkadian, purattu. It and the Tigris encompass the area of Mesopotamia ("between the rivers"). It has shifted its riverbed several times through the millennia. It begins in modern eastern Turkey and flows through Syria and modern Iraq to the Persian Gulf. It and the Tigris meet shortly before emptying into the gulf. It has seen the rise and fall of villages, cities (e.g. Babylon, Carchemish), and great empires (Assyria, Mitanni, Babylon, Persia, etc.) over the years. It was one of the rivers in the Garden of Eden (Gen_2:14). It was the northernmost boundary of the land God promised to Abraham (Gen_15:8; Deu_1:7). It is sometimes called the "great river" or "the River" (Gen_31:21).
II. It seems to be the name of a city or geographical area (Perath; Jer_13:4-7, NIV). It could possibly refer to the Euphrates River (see A).

Here it is...
Josh 21:43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

ralliann · Dec 5, 2021

Clare73 said:
I can acknowledge that
1) Genesis 17:8, Genesis 26:3, Genesis 35:12 give to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob the promise of the land personally--"to you;"

Oh Boy, here we go again with "personally". LOL, here I will accept that :amen:

.

Clare73 said:
2) the NT Hebrews 11:13-16 teaches the promise of an "everlasting inheritance" was made to Abraham,
the NT Hebrews 11:13-16, Acts 7:5 teach he did not receive what was promised to him, and
the NT Hebrews 11:13-16 teaches the promise of an "everlasting inheritance" (Genesis 13:15, Genesis 17:8) was fulfilled to him in heavenly land rather than earthly land;

3) the NT Hebrews 11:13-16 teaches the land promise made personally to Abraham (to Isaac and to Jacob) is fulfilled in the heavenly land.

And another... :amen:

Clare73 said:
Therefore, I can acknowledge that no land promise remains to Abraham, Isaac or Jacob.

I think we are on the same page here, but not absolutely sure.

Clare73 · Dec 5, 2021

ralliann said:
Oh Boy, here we go again with "personally". LOL, here I will accept that .
And another...

I think we are on the same page here, but not absolutely sure.

If you agree with my acknowledgement 3), in addition to the boundaries of the land promise in Genesis 15:18 being fulfilled under Solomon (1 Kings 4:21, 24-25), with no land promises remaining to the patriarchs or "Israel," then we are in agreement.

I like that! Who knew!

ralliann · Dec 5, 2021

Clare73 said:
If you agree with my acknowledgement 3), in addition to the boundaries of the land promise in Genesis 15:18 being fulfilled under Solomon (1 Kings 4:21, 24-25), with no land promises remaining to the patriarchs or "Israel," then we are in agreement.

I like that! Who knew!

I just wasn't sure of your use of the term fulfilled there.
I like agreement always.
I think these issues are at the foundation of Israel centric theology. The Rabbinic idea of the covenants being built upon each other does not work when the first covenant is not the eternal kingdom Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are promised.

Mt 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Clare73 · Dec 5, 2021

ralliann said:
I just wasn't sure of your use of the term fulfilled there.
I like agreement always.
I think these issues are at the foundation of Israel centric theology. The Rabbinic idea of the covenants being built upon each other does not work when the first covenant is not the eternal kingdom Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are promised.

Mt 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I'm not sure I understand all that, but the "everlasting inheritance" turned out not to be a promise of earthly land but a promise of heavenly land in the heavenly city--the eternal kingdom, right?

ralliann · Dec 6, 2021

Clare73 said:
I'm not sure I understand all that, but the "everlasting inheritance" turned out not to be a promise of earthly land but a promise of heavenly land in the heavenly city--the eternal kingdom, right?

Yes.

BewareTheLamb · Dec 6, 2021

Clare73 said:
Yes, they are set on understanding the OT in the light of the NT, being "set" on NT teaching as it applies to the OT.

Do you realize that this is not biblical nor taught anywhere in scripture? The Old Testament stands on its own. Otherwise, Jesus is not who He says he is as He did not have the NT to interpret the scriptures He quotes and lives, let alone all the OT passages concerning the Word of God.

Clare73 · Dec 6, 2021

BewareTheLamb said:
Do you realize that this is not biblical nor taught anywhere in scripture?

Like "God is sovereign" is nowhere specifically stated, and yet everywhere taught in Scripture?
Like "Jesus is God" is nowhere specifically stated, but is taught in Scripture?
Like "God is Triune" is nowhere specifically stated, but is taught in Scripture?

And I realize that from Genesis to Joshua, the Euphrates is referred to as "the great river, the Euphrates," and over the following 400 years of time it came to be commonly referred to simply as "the river" (everyone knowing which river was "the" river) from 2 Samuel 8:3 to 1 Chronicles 1:48, which includes its reference as such in 1 Kings 4:21, 24-25 in the land boundaries of Genesis 15:8, possessed and occupied under Solomon.

I realize Scripture teaches the complete fulfillment under Solomon of the land grant in the covenant of Genesis 15:18, in the glory days of Israel as a nation, when the queen of Egypt would come to seek wisdom from Solomon.

I realize Scripture teaches there is no land promise remaining to Israel, that it has all been completely fulfilled under Solomon (1 Kings 4:21, 24-25).

The Old Testament stands on its own.

Actually, it does not. . .the whole system of ceremonial laws (sacrifices, defilements, cleansings, etc.) are correctly understood only in the light of the NT.
Likewise, that the imputation of God's righteousness (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-22) to Abraham by faith alone also applies to all those of faith in Christ is correctly understood only in the light of the NT.
Etc., etc., etc.

The OT is correctly understood only in the light of the NT, for the NT is the completion of the OT incomplete revelation.

Otherwise, Jesus is not who He says he is as He
did not have the NT to interpret the scriptures He quotes

His quotes are the light of the NT in which the OT is to be understood; e.g., Luke 20:37-38 (immortality, not annihilation, of spirits).

BewareTheLamb · Dec 7, 2021

Clare73 said:
His quotes are the light of the NT in which the OT is to be understood; e.g., Luke 20:37-38 (immortality, not annihilation, of spirits).

you are quite mistaken in a number of areas in this reply.
I do not have the time nor energy for this but you are on a good road and I expect we will both be surprised in glory

Shalom

DaveM · Jan 2, 2023

visionary said:
Even the miracles of becoming a nation again, and winning the shortest war in history with all the numbers, in men and might against them says something.

yeap seems God is not through with the Jews.. The way I see it is the Jews are his earthly flesh people who Jesus came to us through. The church the born-again believer are God's eternal people. God calls us his people in the NT, I do not see any place in the NT he calls the Jews his people, but the bottom line is if you want to be his eternal people you have to believe in Jesus. this is the way I see it, great topic

DaveM · Jan 3, 2023

Comparing Jews to the church like I hear so many do does not make sense at all to me. Some like to accuse people of replacement theology, where they claim people are saying the church replaced God's people the Jews. Yet comparing the two is like apples to oranges, like comparing the dead to the alive.

The church can not replace something Isreal never had, and that is the gospel, of eternal life.

Clare73 · Jan 3, 2023

DaveM said:
Comparing Jews to the church like I hear so many do does not make sense at all to me.

The Jews were the people of God, "the assembly (ekklesia, church) in the desert" (Ac 7:38), the branches of the one olive tree of God's people (Ro 11:17), who were cut off because of unbelief, and whose destiny is to be grafted back into the one olive tree of God's people, the church, IF they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:23).

DaveM said:
Some like to accuse people of replacement theology, where they claim people are saying the church replaced God's people the Jews.

That would be Fulfillment Theology, the NT being the fulfillment of the OT.

DaveM said:
Yet comparing the two is like apples to oranges, like comparing the dead to the alive.

The church can not replace something Isreal never had, and that is the gospel, of eternal life.

It's not about replacing the gospel, something Israel never had, it's about replacing the unbelieving people of God with believing Gentiles.

Jonaitis · Jan 3, 2023

truthseeker63 said:
Are Jews still God's Chosen People ?

No, they are not. God ended their covenant relationship when Christ brought in the new covenant.

"The heavenborn people of God began in the garden and extends to all ages. The earthborn people of God began with Abraham and ended with the cross."
- Samuel Renihan

God was their god insofar that they were blessed in the promise land. This is what was meant for God to be near to the people of Israel. We have better promises built upon a better covenant.

Guojing · Jan 8, 2023

Jonaitis said:
No, they are not. God ended their covenant relationship when Christ brought in the new covenant.

God was their god insofar that they were blessed in the promise land. This is what was meant for God to be near to the people of Israel. We have better promises built upon a better covenant.

That is not true, when you understand Psalms 89 literally, esp vs 30-35

20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:

21 With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.

22 The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.

23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.

24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.

25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.

26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.

29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.

30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;

31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;

32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.

33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.

34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.

36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.

37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.

Jonaitis · Jan 8, 2023

Guojing said:
That is not true, when you understand Psalms 89 literally, esp vs 30-35

This passage is referring to God's faithfulness to His covenant with Israel during that dispensation.

Clearly, we find in the New Testament:

"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete."
- Hebrews 8:13 ESV

Did God lie? No.

Guojing · Jan 8, 2023

Jonaitis said:
This passage is referring to God's faithfulness to His covenant with Israel during that dispensation.

Clearly, we find in the New Testament:

Did God lie? No.

There is a reason why I started that chapter with David.

If you read 2 Samuel 7, the gospel of the kingdom was based on the covenant God made with David, that he will have a son that will rule over Israel forever.

So Jesus and the 12 preached that same gospel to Israel in the 4 gospels and early Acts, Israel would not believe and would rather kill Jesus, and Stephen in Acts 7.

Based on vs 30-35, they forsook him, but what was God's response? Did he end the covenant with Israel, the answer is pretty clear.

Jonaitis · Jan 8, 2023

Guojing said:
There is a reason why I started that chapter with David.

If you read 2 Samuel 7, the gospel of the kingdom was based on the covenant God made with David, that he will have a son that will rule over Israel forever.

So Jesus and the 12 preached that same gospel to Israel in the 4 gospels and early Acts, Israel would not believe and would rather kill Jesus, and Stephen in Acts 7.

Based on vs 30-35, they forsook him, but what was God's response? Did he end the covenant with Israel, the answer is pretty clear.

The Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic Covenants constitute the Old Covenant. The New Covenant was typified in the Davidic Covenant and should not be conflated as the same covenant. The scope of the Davidic Covenant was to focus God's promises under the Abrahamic, and its conditions under the Mosaic, through one individual who would represent the nation. Whenever that king sinned, the nation suffered with him. Whenever the king obeyed, the nation was blessed with him. It focused Abraham's and Moses' Covenant into one person who ruled over the nation, which foreshadowed Christ and His Covenant and people.

Are Jews still God's Chosen People ?

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

christian

christian

Blood-bought

christian

Blood-bought

christian

Member

Blood-bought

Member

Active Member

Active Member

Blood-bought

Soli Deo Gloria

Well-Known Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Well-Known Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Similar threads