Posted on 01/07/2005 7:47:31 PM PST by DouglasKC
Another excellent post !
So your answer is that you are not under the new covenant? Or you don't believe that you are part of Judah or Israel? Unless God lies in both the old and new testaments then you must be Israel or Judah....right?
How about you? Do you believe you have entered into the new covenant?
The Church is the Israel of God
"As indeed he says in Hosea, ‘Those who were not my people I will call "my people," and her who was not beloved I will call "beloved."’ 26 ‘And in the very place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," there they will be called "sons of the living God."’"
The "New Israel "is made up of believers, gentile and Jew.
"For they are not all Israel who are who are of Israel" (Romans 9: 6)
The purpose of the election of the nation and protection of the nation of Israel was to bring forth a Savior. l The church is now the bride of Christ and the Israel of God
Of course. I pray and hope that the Jews and all the people of the world one day set aside their pride and enter the New Covenant, for the Old one has been made obsolete.
Spot-on!
The Church is made up of believers -- it is a spiritual union with Christ Who is the Cornerstone of this gathering of believers (ekklesia).
The purpose of the election of the nation and protection of the nation of Israel was to bring forth a Savior
Absolutely! God's revelation was gradual, and even that was difficult for us to bear. It was God's choice that He pick the smallest tribe, the most humble King, to be the Savior of the world. What honor! The Jews were chosen to be the nation where Christ was born, for the whole world to know that "salvation is from the Jews."
Great post Terry.
I'm going to assume that your answer is "yes"...you believe that you are of the house of Israel to which the new covenant was promised:
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Hebriews 8:9 in the new testament, and Jerimiah 31:32 both agree that those who participate in the "new covenant" are children of those who participated in the "old covenant". The Israelietes who broke the old covenant are the fathers of those who participate in the new covenant. Both physical Israelites, and spriitual Israelites, are members of the house of Israel...do you agree?
I'm going to assume that your answer is "yes"...you believe that you are of the house of Israel to which the new covenant was promised:
I am assuming that you did not read the article in the link
The Israel of God is not the nation of Israel..
9. Not according to, &c.--very different from, and far superior to, the old covenant, which only "worked wrath" ( Rom 4:15 ) through man's "not regarding" it. The new covenant enables us to obey by the Spirit's inward impulse producing love because of the forgiveness of our sins.
made with--rather as Greek, "made to": the Israelites being only recipients, not coagents [ALFORD] with God.
I took them by the hand--as a father takes his child by the hand to support and guide his steps. "There are three periods: (1) that of the promise; (2) that of the pedagogical instruction; (3) that of fulfilment" [BENGEL]. The second, that of the pedagogical pupilage, began at the exodus from Egypt.
I regarded them not--English Version, Jer 31:32 , translates, "Although I was an husband unto them." Paul's translation here is supported by the Septuagint, Syriac, and GESENIUS, and accords with the kindred Arabic. The Hebrews regarded not God, so God, in righteous retribution, regarded them not. On "continued not in my covenant," Schelling observes: The law was in fact the mere ideal of a religious constitution: in practice, the Jews were throughout, before the captivity, more or less polytheists, except in the time of David, and the first years of Solomon (the type of Messiah's reign). Even after the return from Babylon, idolatry was succeeded by what was not much better, formalism and hypocrisy ( Mat 12:43 ). The law was (1) a typical picture, tracing out the features of the glorious Gospel to be revealed; (2) it had a delegated virtue from the Gospel, which ceased, therefore, when the Gospel came.
10. make with--Greek, "make unto."
Israel--comprising the before disunited ( Hbr 8:8 ) ten tribes' kingdom, and that of Judah. They are united in the spiritual Israel, the elect Church, now: they shall be so in the literal restored kingdom of Israel to come.
A. R. FAUSSETT
Paul reminds us that
Unlike Christ, whose sacrifice is lasting
He leaves no doubt that this was something less than perfect and only of temporary nature, until the appearance of Christ
If that is so, why would we go from a New Covenant predicted in the OT to the Old Covenant? From a perfect covenant to a less perfect one? What do we have to find in the Old that is not in the New?
I read the article...thanks.
Terry this is not a difficult question. I'm having a hard time figuring out why you aren't answering it.
Yes or no. Are you of the house of Israel referenced in both the old testament and new testament?
Of course you are unless you have not accepted the new covenant.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
No matter what you think I'm teaching about the law here (which both you and Kostas are grossly misunderstanding) does or does not God, in the bible, say that Israelites, both physical and spiritual, believers and unbelievers, covenant keepers and covenant breakers, are your fathers?
I think the answer is clearly and uneqivocally "Yes". Do you agree...yes or no?
Douglas, I may gorssly misunderstand the law, but I doubt that Paul did. But, let me ask you a simple question about the law: why is it that a man cannot die for another man's sins, yet an animal can?
I said you grossly misunderstand my position as evidenced by your question. I fully agree with Paul on every issue he discusses.
In that case, there is no misunderstanding. God made a New Covenant with the House of Israel and of Judah, and of the "other sheep." Jesus made that very simple when He said to the Canaanite woman that "salvation is from the Jews".
I've never said or implied otherwise.
Then we are in agreement. Salvation did come from the Jews -- all thirteen of them. But that's where it stopped. The rest was done by the "other sheep." The "sheep" who took the New Covenant and spread the name of God of Abraham throught the world.
The people of the Old Testament have not accepted the New Testament (not yet anyway, although hope exists) but are defiant as they were with the First One.
So, the "other sheep," who are the backbone and carriers of the New Covenant, have no reason to dwell, seek, imitate, copy, or do anything the followers of the obsolete Covenant do, lest they make the New Covenant obsolete as well.
You have a misunderstanding of the covenants. You seem to confuse the old covenant, ratified at Sinai, with the entire collection of books called the "old testament". They are not one and the same. Paul based all of his understanding upon the only scripture he knew...the books of the "old" testament.
Paul knew what that New Covenant entailed, even if it was not written down yet. The OT is not obsolete; its interpretation and practices are.
The interpretation and practices of the jews. That doesn't mean that there is NO validity to the old testament. The example I've been using it is that of the Lord's holy days. You seem to be of the mindset that since the jews observed them, or since they were first record in the books of the old testament, that there must be something wrong with them.
Doug you seem to have a hard time understanding that All that are Israel are not israel..
The Israel of God is the CHURCH
You keep wanting to back to what was an imperfect shadow to justify yourself.
Jews that are outside of the church are not the Israel of God.
For Christians, the OT is interepretd in light of the New Covenant. Once the New Covenant was formed, those who continue in the Old Covenant are left outside. That includes their practices.
The Jewish practices were established under the Old Covenant. They no longer apply to Christians, just as circumcision in the flesh, kosher foods, and all other customs practriced by the Jews don't apply. Accepting them would mean going back to the practices that the NT says are not part of the New Covenant. Why? Because they are not salivifc. The blood of the rams and bulls does not atone for anyone. Their sacrifice is a mere reminder of our sins, and imperfect attempt at obtaining absolution of our sins.
Modern Judaism, having no other choice, is closer to Christianity today because it offers prayers instead of symbolic carnal offerings and their consumption and disappearance, as a symbolic gesture of obliteration for our sins.
Christians are not required, bound or directed to follow the law. The law offers no salvation. The works of the law are dead. As one Calvinist site says -- it's about Grace, not race.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.