Interesting, you are the first Christian I have encountered who believed that "They did not become a nation until after they'd entered the promised land."
I doubt that is true, but it is also immaterial. A simple examination of scripture will prove what I posted correct. Prior to their entrance into the promised land the Hebrews were called many things, the closest and most salient to the current exchange between us is "
sons of Israel," and that is a reference to their forefather and patriarch, Jacob. Furthermore, as I am confident you know, and I point out in goodwill hoping to build from consensus, the word "
israel," means "
God perseveres." In the allegorical sense of the phrase, the "sins of Israel," could be understood idiomatically as "sons of God perseveres," or "sons of the God who perseveres," a moniker indicating the separateness, or holiness, their having been separated for sacred purpose.
Either way it has absolutely nothing to do with geo-political nation-state status.
This is all very easily verified by looking it up in scripture, reading the texts as written, and marking how the labels changed as the promises first made to Abraham and Jesus were applied to and clarified and expanded to Isaac, Jacob, the Hebrew, Israel, and then the Jews ("Jew" is a name that came from the tribe Judah and was later generalized to apply to all the tribes of Israel. To be a Benjaminite was to also be a Jew even though the tribe of Benjamine is entirely different from the tribe of Judah.
Look it up.
A simple word search of the word "nation" will readily show the word "nation" was not applied by God to the Hebrews until Exodus. Every single one of those mentions is prophetic. In other words, they would be a nation, but where not then, at that time, the nation God would later make them. Notice also God's use of the word "nation" is not geo-political. This use of the word continues on through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It's not until Joshua that we begin to see God use the word "nation" in any geo-political sense and even then, the usage is more in keeping with the fulfillment of the covenant promise rather than their having obtained geo-political nationhood. Logically speaking, hey could not be a nation with land and defining boundaries until they'd occupied the land. As the word search is continued, something very remarkable (shocking to some) will be discovered. The phrase "
nation of Israel," never occurs in the Old Testament! It's only in the New Testament that we find that exact phrase! (Php. 3:5). In 1 Cor. 10:18 find the "
Look at the nation Israel." On all the other occasions the premise of a geo-political nation-state named "
Israel" is a matter of inference, not explicit report.
And, no, I do not know why our theologies and subordinate doctrines do not better reflect what is actually stated (I have my suspicions
, but that's not currently germane). Whether or not I'm the only one you've ever heard say these things, they are what scripture
states. Scripture states what scripture states
.
Does that mean you believed only starting from the book of Joshua, then Israel became a nation?
What I believe is irrelevant. What scripture states is what is relevant. We all should be basing our views first and foremost on scripture, not doctrines later made by men. Scripture is the ultimate authority. You and I can debate our respective doctrinal differences but, on any occasion when any doctrine conflicts with what scripture plainly states, our allegiance must be to scripture, not doctrine.
Yes?
Doctrinally, the "nation of Israel" is defined diversely and said to mean many things but as far as scripture goes.... scripture states what scripture states and the Hebrews who left Egypt were not a nation until well after they'd entered the land promised to Abraham. We should adjust our thinking, our doctrines, and our practices accordingly. You and I should, for the sake of this discussion, adjust our thinking doctrine, and practice accordingly. If the phrase "nation of Israel" is used in ways different than scripture's usage I am going to point that out. I'll point it out as a discrepancy between post and scripture and then use that discrepancy to note a flaw in the case being presented because any case that does not accurately present scripture is a flawed case.
So just put a little thought into it and post accordingly. Do not give me the opportunity to make those observations and protests. I want us both to build from consensus and the consensus I would like us to build is not one based on my views, my doctrines or your views, your doctrines, but on what scripture states. If we have consensus with each other but our consensus does not agree with scripture then what we have obtained betwen us is worthless.
Yes?
Throughout the whole of Moses life, Israel was not a nation? That is really a very strange doctrine, which scripture verses did you use to form this doctrine? If you prefer not to share, I am fine too.
I'm going to wait and provide the opportunity to search the scriptures for yourself and see if what I posted is correct or incorrect. I'm going to reply to your other post (#549) and then I'll be gone until later today, maybe not until tomorrow. The thread is no going anywhere. Take the time to investigate for yourself. Stick to scripture. Look at what is
stated. Make note of what is
stated and what is not stated. Your mind, like mine, will naturally call up things we've been taught so make note of those occasions and return to what is
stated in scripture. Don't go looking for inferences. Only after examining, recognizing, noting what is stated do you go back and look at
what scripture itself implies - the places where scripture itself asserts an inference, not what post-canonical doctrines say should be inferred.
- What does scripture state?
- What does scripture itself imply?
- What do men later infer scripture to say and is what they say it says what it actually states?
I'll check back later and if you want me to proceed and answer these two questions further, then I will. If you read what I read scripture to state, then we won't need to discuss the matter further and can move on with the discussion realizing the nation of Israel is not a big part of how many gentiles and Samaritans could have been saved if Jesus had sent disciples there.
