Who is "National Israel"?

[Spiritual Jew]

So that link that I provided explained to you that, even though the Greek word is the same, the meaning can be either seen as Testament or Covenant, depending on the context.

While “covenant” and “testament” are the same Greek word (diatheke), “testament” stresses a special type of agreement. A “testament” is only valid after the testator dies, whereas a “covenant” is in force while the maker is living.

You are promoting a doctrine of devils. The new covenant (diatheke) was put into full effect when Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, shed His blood and died and rose again 3 days later. Your attempt to make it as if there is a new testament (diatheke) and a separate new covenant (diatheke) is not taught anywhere in scripture. You are denying the obvious and making a mockery of what Christ accomplished long ago to bring the hope of the forgiveness of sins and eternal life to the world, including Israel, through the new covenant (diatheke) put into effect by His blood shed on the cross and His resurrection.

 

[jgr]

The KJV used Testament.

Based on the descriptions in your own previous post, the KJV should have used "covenant" in Matthew 26:28.

As a wide majority of other English versions did.

And your claim, that there is no New Covenant for individual Jews, is false.

 

[mkgal1]

the other is the one cut with the Nation Israel in Hebrews 8:8, with the Law written in the heart of all Jews.

Please notice it's not ALL:

Acts 3:22-23
For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must listen to Him in everything He tells you.( f ) Everyone who does not listen to Him will be completely cut off from among His people.( g’ )
​

.......this goes back to the conditions of the covenant made on Mt Sinai (Deuteronomy 18:15-19).

 

[Guojing]

Based on the descriptions in your own previous post, the KJV should have used "covenant" in Matthew 26:28.

As a wide majority of other English versions did.

And your claim, that there is no New Covenant for individual Jews, is false.

No, I am claiming the KJV got it correct when they used Testament.

I am not responsible if you choose to misinterpret my views.

 

[Guojing]

Please notice it's not ALL:

Acts 3:22-23
For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must listen to Him in everything He tells you.( f ) Everyone who does not listen to Him will be completely cut off from among His people.( g’ )
​

.......this goes back to the conditions of the covenant made on Mt Sinai (Deuteronomy 18:15-19).

The nation of Israel will accept Christ as their Messiah, and all Jews that belong to Israel will be saved corporately.

It was the same under the Law of Moses when the High Priest sacrificed 2 animals during the Year of Atonement. If God accepts the sacrifice with fire, the entire nation is blessed.

 

[Guojing]

You are promoting a doctrine of devils. The new covenant (diatheke) was put into full effect when Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, shed His blood and died and rose again 3 days later. Your attempt to make it as if there is a new testament (diatheke) and a separate new covenant (diatheke) is not taught anywhere in scripture. You are denying the obvious and making a mockery of what Christ accomplished long ago to bring the hope of the forgiveness of sins and eternal life to the world, including Israel, through the new covenant (diatheke) put into effect by His blood shed on the cross and His resurrection.

As Hebrews 8:8 stated, it will be cut with the nation of Israel.

But Israel the nation has rejected him and is currently an enemy to the gospel. Paul himself stated that in Romans 11.

 

[Guojing]

Correct. So why are they being excluded, in your interpretation, from actually receiving the cleansing of sin and renewal and presence of the Lord that is written to have been promised to them?

Acts 3:19-21
"Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you
​

This was posted earlier:

​

........and I see no such delay. There was acknowledgement that Jesus was Messiah from those from the 12 tribes of Israel.

Unless you hold the doctrine that Jesus has already made his 2nd coming for the nation Israel, obviously none of them have received the wiping out of their sins yet.

Peter talks about the same delay in his epistles 1 Peter 1:3-9 and 1 Peter 4:12-19, as I have referenced to you together with Acts 3:19-21.

The delay was also clearly stated by him in 2 Peter 3:9.

 

[jgr]

No, I am claiming the KJV got it correct when they used Testament.

I am not responsible if you choose to misinterpret my views.

From your post 221:

"While “covenant” and “testament” are the same Greek word (diatheke), “testament” stresses a special type of agreement. A “testament” is only valid after the testator dies, whereas a “covenant” is in force while the maker is living."

Jesus was living in Matthew 26:28. He had not yet died.

From your post, therefore, the applicable word is "covenant".

You're misrepresenting your own view.

 

[Guojing]

From your post 221:

"While “covenant” and “testament” are the same Greek word (diatheke), “testament” stresses a special type of agreement. A “testament” is only valid after the testator dies, whereas a “covenant” is in force while the maker is living."

Jesus was living in Matthew 26:28. He had not yet died.

From your post, therefore, the applicable word is "covenant".

You're misrepresenting your own view.

When did Jesus shed his blood? Was it during the Last Supper?

Can he still be alive when he shed his blood?

 

[jgr]

When did Jesus shed his blood? Was it during the Last Supper?

Can he still be alive when he shed his blood?

Do you think Jesus was lying?

 

[Guojing]

Do you think Jesus was lying?

No, he was describing the cross, an event in the future where his blood will be shed, and his blood will be poured out.

You are misinterpreting what he said, to fit your doctrine.

 

[jgr]

No, he was describing the cross, an event in the future where his blood will be shed, and his blood will be poured out.

You are misinterpreting what he said, to fit your doctrine.

Of course that's what He was describing.

And His Blood was and is the Blood of His New Covenant.

And that was the New Covenant that He extended to His individual Jewish disciples.

And your claim, that there is no New Covenant for individual Jews, is false.

 

[Guojing]

Of course that's what He was describing.

And His Blood was and is the Blood of His New Covenant.

And that was the New Covenant that He extended to His individual Jewish disciples.

And your claim, that there is no New Covenant for individual Jews, is false.

Alright, if you insist.

Hebrews 8:8 and Jeremiah 31:31 are the clear verses that stated the the New Covenant will be made with the nation of Israel.

If you want to desperately use a passage like Matthew 26:28 to establish your doctrine that it was also made with the 12, even when the KJV translators chose the word "Testament" instead, you are free to do so.

 

[jgr]

Alright, if you insist.

Hebrews 8:8 and Jeremiah 31:31 are the clear verses that stated the the New Covenant will be made with the nation of Israel.

If you want to desperately use a passage like Matthew 26:28 to establish your doctrine that it was also made with the 12, even when the KJV translators chose the word "Testament" instead, you are free to do so.

Glad you agree.

Jesus was not desperate.

So stop claiming that there is no New Covenant for individual Jews.

That claim is false.

 

[Guojing]

Glad you agree.

Jesus was not desperate.

So stop claiming that there is no New Covenant for individual Jews.

That claim is false.

Its false in your opinion, which you are certainly free to hold. (Romans 14:5)

 

[jgr]

Its false in your opinion, which you are certainly free to hold. (Romans 14:5)

Matthew 26:28 is not an opinion.

It is the Words and Blood of the Author of the New Covenant.

 

[mkgal1]

The nation of Israel will accept Christ as their Messiah, and all Jews that belong to Israel will be saved corporately

The ancient biblical Israelites have long since perished.

Luke wrote that those that did not listen to Jesus (at His first advent) were to be cut off from the Israelite assembly (and were no longer Israelites). This was the condition from the very beginning (recorded in Deuteronomy 18:15-19):

Acts 3:23
Everyone who does not listen to Him will be completely cut off from among His people.( g’ )​

 

[Guojing]

The ancient biblical Israelites have long since perished.

Luke wrote that those that did not listen to Jesus (at His first advent) were to be cut off from the Israelite assembly (and were no longer Israelites). This was the condition from the very beginning (recorded in Deuteronomy 18:15-19):

Acts 3:23
Everyone who does not listen to Him will be completely cut off from among His people.( g’ )​

Yes, but you do agree that Jesus has not return for the nation Israel yet but will do so in the future right?

Or you are an Amillenist?

 

[mkgal1]

It was the same under the Law of Moses when the High Priest sacrificed 2 animals during the Year of Atonement. If God accepts the sacrifice with fire, the entire nation is blessed.

But God (and Paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) doesn't state ALL were Israelites (back in the first century - when the old covenant was coming to an end).

Romans 9:6
It is not as though God’s word has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.​

The priesthood changed with the advent of Jesus. He is the High Priest and the Holy nation of His kingdom no longer profane His holy name. This is the only nation God counts as "His":

1 Peter 2:7-9
To you who believe, then, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,​

“The stone the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone,”b8and,

“A stone of stumbling

and a rock of offense.”(c)​

They stumble because they disobey the word—and to this they were appointed.9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.
​

 

[mkgal1]

Yes, but you do agree that Jesus has not return for the nation Israel yet but will do so in the future right?

Or you are an Amillenist?

Yes, I'm a partial-preterist amillennialist....so I am not expecting Jesus to return for an unidentifiable group like that. The biblical Israelite assembly was a type (shadow/symbol) of nation in covenant with God. The True Church is the antitype (reality the that symbol pointed to or represented).