RT's illegitimate language use

[Guojing]

I'll not belabor the point, though your statement does not delegitimize anything I've said. The singular "seed" is a singular group of people--a composite whole, defined by faith in a single object, namely Christ.

Christ is the "seed," and believing descendants of Abraham are his "seed," as well. The descendants of Abraham are thus tied to the one Christ, determining the legitimate composition of Abraham's "seed."

The point is not that "seed" is a single person, but rather, that it excludes anybody outside of those who have faith in Christ. God has no other only-begotten Son than Christ.

There are no other "offspring" that God has thus begotten. All true descendants of Abraham are united, by faith, in him, and in him alone. That is Paul's point, that God's singular identification of "offspring" comes by our identification with God's only-begotten offspring, namely Christ.

Both Christ, and us, through him, are God's "seed." And Israel's natural "seed," believing Israel, were similarly determined God's "seed" by their faith in his word. Believing Jews are Abraham's natural "seed" by faith in Christ, and believing Gentiles are Abraham's spiritual "seed" through faith in Christ, as well. This fact does not exterminate Jews as God's promised natural "seed" of Abraham.

We are all united spiritually as heirs together with Christ, by virtue of our faith in him. But the promise of many nations, and of the single nation Israel, has not therefore been exterminated. For Abraham to inherit many nations of faith there had to be no discrimination between Jews under the Law and Gentiles without the Law. Christ brought a way apart from the Law to unite us and still preserve the promises God gave to Abraham.

Nice presentation, do you hold to the distinction between these 2 entities?

1. True Israel, which comprised of the faithful circumcision, David, Peter etc
2. Body of Christ, which comprised of Jews and gentiles in equal status

 

[ralliann]

Was Canaan not an earthly inheritance for the seed of Abraham coming out of Egypt, in fulfillment of the promise of the covenant land promise (Ge 15:7-21), while the covenant of Ge 17:5-6 was a fulfillment of the covenant promise of seed (Ge 15:5)?

Yes, but gen 17 promises Abe Isaac and Jacob the heavenly city. they were strangers and sojourners here.

 

[RandyPNW]

Nice presentation, do you hold to the distinction between these 2 entities?

1. True Israel, which comprised of the faithful circumcision, David, Peter etc
2. Body of Christ, which comprised of Jews and gentiles in equal status

Israel is Israel by definition--a truism. There is no need to define Israel since it's self-explanatory. But when we talk about "True Israel" we're talking about a narrower view of Israel, after the chaff is take away, and the real representatives of faith are discerned. The nation was all called to be of faith, but only those who remained faithful were chosen.

In sum "True Israel" is the nation consisting only of those with genuine faith in God's word. That does not mean that "Israel" is redefined to refer only to those of faith, but only that those who in Israel remain faithful are found to be true to their calling.

There are those who say that only a remnant of the nation became "True Israel" or that "True Israel" became the Church. This is not true. God has intended for True Israel to be represented not as a small part of a nation, but rather, in the entire nation generally. Even if not every individual has faith, the nation must present faithfulness to God's word, as opposed to just a few who do that.

And this must be done by national Israel, as opposed to the International Church. Though the Church consists of all nations, Israel is called specifically to be one of those nations. True Israel, therefore, must be the contingent of Israel that is part of the International Church.

Yes, the International Church accepts nations equally, since the Law no longer exists to distinguish Israel from other nations. Since no nation any longer has covenant relationship with God through the Law, and the only means of covenant relationship with God is now through Christ, all nations, to obtain covenant status with God must do so by equal access to Christ.

 

[Guojing]

Israel is Israel by definition--a truism. There is no need to define Israel since it's self-explanatory. But when we talk about "True Israel" we're talking about a narrower view of Israel, after the chaff is take away, and the real representatives of faith are discerned. The nation was all called to be of faith, but only those who remained faithful were chosen.

In sum "True Israel" is the nation consisting only of those with genuine faith in God's word. That does not mean that "Israel" is redefined to refer only to those of faith, but only that those who in Israel remain faithful are found to be true to their calling.

There are those who say that only a remnant of the nation became "True Israel" or that "True Israel" became the Church. This is not true. God has intended for True Israel to be represented not as a small part of a nation, but rather, in the entire nation generally. Even if not every individual has faith, the nation must present faithfulness to God's word, as opposed to just a few who do that.

And this must be done by national Israel, as opposed to the International Church. Though the Church consists of all nations, Israel is called specifically to be one of those nations. True Israel, therefore, must be the contingent of Israel that is part of the International Church.

Yes, the International Church accepts nations equally, since the Law no longer exists to distinguish Israel from other nations. Since no nation any longer has covenant relationship with God through the Law, and the only means of covenant relationship with God is now through Christ, all nations, to obtain covenant status with God must do so by equal access to Christ.

Your last paragraph is interesting.

When you read about the new covenant being made with the house of Israel and Judah, you allow the international church to be under that as well?

But that would mean we are also Israel, would you agree?

 

[RandyPNW]

Your last paragraph is interesting.

When you read about the new covenant being made with the house of Israel and Judah, you allow the international church to be under that as well?

But that would mean we are also Israel, would you agree?

When Christ established a new covenant of mercy with Israel it seemed to almost be done covertly, as if to be accepted only by those of faith. Jesus, for example, made his Passover presentation of a "New Covenant" only with his disciples. This could hardly have been understood by Israel overall, as the presaging of a New Covenant!

But in rising from the dead, the blood and the body of Christ became our permanent possession based on this New Covenant, as seen in the Passover representation. And it became readily understood, over time, that if Israel was forgiven through death and resurrection, by an act of mercy, that same merciful act could apply to the entire world. All are sinful, and all were deemed dead by act of Christ's death. And all could therefore obtain forgiveness just as Christ offered it to Israel on the cross.

So the New Covenant was initially presented to a very small group within Israel, but became instantly effective for the whole world at the resurrection of Christ. This is the same New Covenant, for Israel and for the whole world, which became effective immediately, but not immediately received by all nations, in particular Israel.

 

[Guojing]

When Christ established a new covenant of mercy with Israel it seemed to almost be done covertly, as if to be accepted only by those of faith. Jesus, for example, made his Passover presentation of a "New Covenant" only with his disciples. This could hardly have been understood by Israel overall, as the presaging of a New Covenant!

But in rising from the dead, the blood and the body of Christ became our permanent possession based on this New Covenant, as seen in the Passover representation. And it became readily understood, over time, that if Israel was forgiven through death and resurrection, by an act of mercy, that same merciful act could apply to the entire world. All are sinful, and all were deemed dead by act of Christ's death. And all could therefore obtain forgiveness just as Christ offered it to Israel on the cross.

So the New Covenant was initially presented to a very small group within Israel, but became instantly effective for the whole world at the resurrection of Christ. This is the same New Covenant, for Israel and for the whole world, which became effective immediately, but not immediately received by all nations, in particular Israel.

2 points/questions to make on this presentation

1. Is the term New Testament synonymous with New Covenant for you?
2. When Hebrews 8:8 said the New Covenant will be made with Israel, they actually meant it is also for the whole world?

 

[RandyPNW]

2 points/questions to make on this presentation

1. Is the term New Testament synonymous with New Covenant for you?
2. When Hebrews 8:8 said the New Covenant will be made with Israel, they actually meant it is also for the whole world?

Yes, New Testament and New Covenant are synonymous. I use the words interchangeably, but prefer one when referring to how it is used in the particular translation I'm referring to.

Heb 8.8 is referring to the prophecy of Jer 31.31 in which Israel is promised national restoration at the coming of Messiah. The New Covenant was actually initiated at the death and resurrection of Christ. But with respect to the entire nation, Israel, that New Covenant will not be put in use by Israel until they receive Christ at his Coming.

In other words, any individual or nation may apply the New Covenant today simply by embracing that Covenant. Yes, an entire nation may embrace that Covenant, just as an individual would.

Many nations have adopted the Christian Covenant in the past. Of course, they all eventually go "south." However, nations can embrace Christianity for their people collectively. And that is God's ultimate wish, to see not just individuals, but also entire nations, embrace Christianity for their people.

Israel will do so as among the last nations in history to accept Christianity for their people. But Jer 31 is a prophecy that they will do so at the coming of the Messianic Kingdom, ie when Christ Returns. That is, the one who initially made this Covenant at his 1st Coming will be the one bringing it to Israel at his 2nd Coming.

 

[Guojing]

Yes, New Testament and New Covenant are synonymous. I use the words interchangeably, but prefer one when referring to how it is used in the particular translation I'm referring to.

Testament means will. By definition, a will is executed only at the death of the person making the will

Covenant means promise. By definition, when 2 parties make a covenant, each of them are obliged to follow the covenant arrangement. No death is required in any case.

So they cannot be synonymous. But if you prefer to make them the same, I understand.

Heb 8.8 is referring to the prophecy of Jer 31.31 in which Israel is promised national restoration at the coming of Messiah. The New Covenant was actually initiated at the death and resurrection of Christ. But with respect to the entire nation, Israel, that New Covenant will not be put in use by Israel until they receive Christ at his Coming.

In other words, any individual or nation may apply the New Covenant today simply by embracing that Covenant. Yes, an entire nation may embrace that Covenant, just as an individual would.

So even though scripture refers to the New Covenant as made only with Israel, and you agree that they are not having it now, somehow you reasoned that while it has not started from Israel, any individual or nation "may apply the New Covenant today simply by embracing that Covenant. Yes, an entire nation may embrace that Covenant, just as an individual would."?

Do you have scripture for that reasoning in bold? I am curious. Is it just something you were taught by another?

 

[Dan Perez]

Yes, so what's the point? I just quoted this to a fellow believer on another forum who thinks "Israel" is not the people of the land in Israel called by that name...

If Israel is not "their State in a small part of the holy land" then who are they? While it's true that God called the nation to be a "nation of faith," and while it's true that they've failed in this throughout the NT era, it is necessary that they be recognized for who they are ethnically, so that God can fulfill His promise to them and restore them.

I hear this all the time, how bad they are, as if all sinners who reject Christ can never repent. And I hear that nations cannot become "Christian nations," which is in error historically. I give up.

Reference to the need for a "new covenant" merely indicates the current covenant has failed, and has to either be "reworked" or abandoned entirely, to be replaced with a new document. In the NT Scriptures, it is recognized that Jesus made this kind of "New Covenant," to replace the Covenant of Law with a new covenant that covers Israel for their failures under the old one.

Recovery from the Babylonian Captivity constituted a complete failure under the Old Covenant, requiring that a "new covenant" be made. As such, it was a "reworking" of the old one as a kind of "2nd offering." This was in the time of Zerubbabel who supervised rebuilding of the old temple.

Of course, in the New Covenant of Christ, the temple is destroyed with finality. Christ, then, becomes a kind of "new temple."

When I read bout what is called the land of CANNAAN , but included , Judea , Samaria , Syria , and part of EGYPT is what I see at this moment !!

dan p

 

[RandyPNW]

When I read bout what is called the land of CANNAAN , but included , Judea , Samaria , Syria , and part of EGYPT is what I see at this moment !!

dan p

The land of Israel was originally the land of Canaan, possessed by about 7 nations which God called Israel to dispossess. The borders changed over time, due to conquests by both Israel and their enemies.

I'm not sure the original boundaries of Canaan are important. What is important is that the heart of Israel's original land be returned to them--simply because God wants this. It just has to be God's timing. And it has to be in a godly way.

 

[Clare73]

The land of Israel was originally the land of Canaan, possessed by about 7 nations which God called Israel to dispossess. The borders changed over time, due to conquests by both Israel and their enemies.

I'm not sure the original boundaries of Canaan are important. What is important is that the heart of Israel's original land be returned to them--simply because God wants this. It just has to be God's timing. And it has to be in a godly way.

The promise of return to the land was fulfilled under Ezra and Nehemiah after the exile, where the wall was rebuilt, the temple was rebuilt and the people re-dedicated themselves to God with much rejoicing which could be heard from afar.

There is no promise remaining to Israel of a return to the land. It has been fulfilled.
Israel is now on the same NT footing as all mankind; entrance into the everlasting kingdom of God which is here now (Mt 12:28, Lk 11:20) is only by faith in Jesus Christ.
The kingdom that is here now being everlasting, there is no other kingdom of God to come. It has already come, invisible and within (Lk 17:20-21) the hearts where he reigns and rules.

 

[RandyPNW]

The promise of return to the land was fulfilled under Ezra and Nehemiah after the exile, where the wall was rebuilt, the temple was rebuilt and the people re-dedicated themselves to God with much rejoicing which could be heard from afar.

There is no promise remaining to Israel of a return to the land. It has been fulfilled.
Israel is now on the same NT footing as all mankind; entrance into the everlasting kingdom of God which is here now (Mt 12:28, Lk 11:20) is only by faith in Jesus Christ.
The kingdom that is here now being everlasting, there is no other kingdom of God to come. It has already come, invisible and within (Lk 17:20-21) the hearts where he reigns and rules.

Yes, many Christians dismiss the future hope of Israel because of their national failure over the last 2000 years. That appears to be enough time to show that a plan has completely failed!

But has it? Though generation after generation of Jewish People continue to fail, does that mean that God cannot raise up a new generation of Jewish People to re-make Israel into a godly nation once again? I don't think so.

It's odd that the very established Church that initially chose to deny Israel her place among the recipients of grace became just as bad as Israel ever was! The corruptions of the Catholic Church are well known in history. And even the Protestant Churches have fallen into apostate theology. The Evangelical Church is now capitulating to Wokism. And yet we would deny grace to the nation Israel?

Rom 11.15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?...
20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either...
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, many Christians dismiss the future hope of Israel because of their national failure over the last 2000 years.
That appears to be enough time to show that a plan has completely failed!

Straw man. . .

The plan has not failled, the promise to return to the land was fulfilled under Ezra and Nehemiah (post #31).
Being fulfilled, there is no longer any plan for Israel to return to Canaan.

Just as being fulfilled, there is also no longer any plan for a Messiah.

But has it? Though generation after generation of Jewish People continue to fail, does that mean that God cannot raise up a new generation of Jewish People to re-make Israel into a godly nation once again? I don't think so.

It's not about what God can do, it's about what the apostles reveal God will do.

It's odd that the very established Church that initially chose to deny Israel her place among the recipients of grace became just as bad as Israel ever was! The corruptions of the Catholic Church are well known in history. And even the Protestant Churches have fallen into apostate theology. The Evangelical Church is now capitulating to Wokism. And yet we would deny grace to the nation Israel?

Rom 11.15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?...
20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either...

...23 And IF they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in...

Israel's only destiny is to be grafted back into the one olive tree of God's people, the NT church, IF (not "when") they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:23).

25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

Not all Israel is Israel.

"In this way" refers back to through a remnant as presented in Ro 11:1-10. . .the same way all mankind is being saved.