Israel (is) my son...my firstborn.

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

In our understanding, Paul delineates the "how":

Phil. 2:For he, who had always been God by nature, did not cling to his prerogatives as God’s equal, but stripped himself of all privilege by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born as mortal man. And, having become man, he humbled himself by living a life of utter obedience, even to the extent of dying, and the death he died was the death of a common criminal. That is why God has now lifted him so high, and has given him the name beyond all names, so that at the name of Jesus “every knee shall bow”, whether in Heaven or earth or under the earth. And that is why, in the end, “every tongue shall confess” that Jesus Christ” is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

As to why:

IMU, because in Genesis God established the only way to exercise legal authority on the earth is to be or through a man, thus covenants and eventually The Word becoming a man.

Thx. If infinite God could manifest as man once, then why not again? That would sTand against jesus being the only way.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The Bible appears to teach that God is both transcendent and immanent. This idea does not appear to cause a problem with the 'oneness' or unity of God.

In the Tanakh, God resides in heaven and the tabernacle, and, later, in Solomon's temple. And, according to the NT, he takes up residence in the living temple of his Son, Jesus Christ.

The formula is express nicely by Paul in Ephesians 4:6, where he says to the Church:
'One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ'.

If God, as Spirit, is able to reside in a building made by the hands of men, then surely he can reside in a temple made by his own hand? And if the full measure of the Father's Spirit was in the Son, then both the head and body enjoy the grace. The head receives the full measure, whilst individuals who form the body receive a measure according to their gift, by faith.

I agree. But what about only jesus?

 

[Kenny]

Thx. If infinite God could manifest as man once, then why not again? That would sTand against jesus being the only way.

In the realm of God's capacity, of course He could. But could and will are two different stories.

In as much as Jesus accomplished all as the First and the Last and as the Alpha and Omega, no other needs to come.

The purpose of Jesus was to open the door so that man could be in full communion with God again. Mission accomplished. (within the context of m signature)

Missions still yet to be accomplished, coming back again, reigning for 1000 years, destroying the Destroyer and Hell, and restoring earth to its full glory. (Of course there may be others -- I'm not omniscient.)

 

[3rdAngel]

I go along with everything you say in your post, with regard to the Church, the body of Christ.

In Romans 11, however, Paul asks the question, Hath God cast away his people? The rhetorical reply is, God forbid!

In Romans 11:25,26, he adds, 'For l would not , brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to lsrael until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
And so all lsrael shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:'

So, whilst 'replacement theology' appears to work within the Church age, it is not a complete replacement. Israel (of old), it appears, still has a role to play in God's plan.

Do you agree?

For me, what I posted in the scriptures earlier was not replacement theology but what God's Word says who Israel is in the new covenant. God's Israel is simple all those who now believe and follow what Gods' Word says. This of course includes all BELIEVING Jewish and Gentile believers who are all now all one in Christ through faith in Gods' Word.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I agree. But what about only jesus?

Solomon asked the question, But will God in very deed dwell with men upon the earth? [2 Chronicles 6:18].

The ambiguity of scripture makes it appear as if Solomon was to build God's temple. But the temple the earthly Solomon was to build was a temporal structure into which the Ark of the Covenant was to be placed. This picture leads us to consider the everlasting temple of God, which is to be built by God Himself.

In coming to earth in the person of Jesus, God dwells on earth in a man. This fleshly appearance was necessary in order to make the acceptable offering for sin. So Jesus offered himself for the sin of mankind, and because his sacrifice was acceptable to the Father, Jesus was raised to eternal life, and to glory. From the throne in heaven, Jesus Christ sends the Holy Spirit, by which the spiritual temple, the Church, the body of Christ, is built.

On earth, dwelling amongst men, Jesus Christ is 'God with us'. He is fully man and fully God. In resurrection Jesus becomes 'My Lord and my God', as Thomas rightly exclaimed [John 20:27]. He becomes head of the Church, and worthy of worship.

 

[Redemptionsong]

For me, what I posted in the scriptures earlier was not replacement theology but what God's Word says who Israel is in the new covenant. God's Israel is simple all those who now believe and follow what Gods' Word says. This of course includes all BELIEVING Jewish and Gentile believers who are all now all one in Christ through faith in Gods' Word.

Yes, l don't question your understanding of events up to the present time. But the times of the Gentiles will come to an end, and for one week, or seven years, the focus will return to old lsrael.

What l was referring to in Romans is a future event. God has not given up on old lsrael. He has set a time, in the future, when he will return to save Judah and Jerusalem.

What do you think Zechariah, chapters 12-14, and 12:10, are about?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Good points, IMO.Additionally, I think that the application isn't correct either.
Jesus was declared to be the "only begotten of the Father" and of God speaking "my beloved son"- and not "my firstborn".He was declared to be the "firstborn among the dead" after the resurrection.
firstborn also gives the understanding that there are others to come.
But I don't know everything, so open to viewpoints

I find besides Exodus 4:22 ' Israel my son ' at the next verse Exodus 4:23 that God's 'son' in verse 23 included the whole nation at that time as being 'son'. ( so besides Abraham there would be others to come )

I also find at Colossians 1:15 B that although it does Not say ' first born Son' it does say about pre-human heavenly Jesus as being the 'first born of all creation' which corresponds to Revelation 3:14 B as pre-human Jesus being the 'beginning of the creation by God'. The beginning start of God's first creation. - Proverbs 8:22

 

[URAVIP2ME]

For me, what I posted in the scriptures earlier was not replacement theology but what God's Word says who Israel is in the new covenant. God's Israel is simple all those who now believe and follow what Gods' Word says. This of course includes all BELIEVING Jewish and Gentile believers who are all now all one in Christ through faith in Gods' Word.

Yes, since Pentecost the 'Israel of God' is No longer a fleshy national nation but a 'spiritual nation' - 1 Peter 2:9,5
A nation that has No borders, No boundaries found located on any map.
No longer a nation by fleshly descent - Romans 2:28-29
Not earthly, but now 'heavenly Jerusalem' is now the seat of government - Galatians 4:26

 

[Kenny]

Yes, l don't question your understanding of events up to the present time. But the times of the Gentiles will come to an end, and for one week, or seven years, the focus will return to old lsrael.

What l was referring to in Romans is a future event. God has not given up on old lsrael. He has set a time, in the future, when he will return to save Judah and Jerusalem.

What do you think Zechariah, chapters 12-14, and 12:10, are about?

I am reminded of Revelation where God reserved 144,000 Israelites to become preachers of the Gospel.

Enjoying your breakdown of scriptures.

 

[Kenny]

I find besides Exodus 4:22 ' Israel my son ' at the next verse Exodus 4:23 that God's 'son' in verse 23 included the whole nation at that time as being 'son'. ( so besides Abraham there would be others to come )

I also find at Colossians 1:15 B that although it does Not say ' first born Son' it does say about pre-human heavenly Jesus as being the 'first born of all creation' which corresponds to Revelation 3:14 B as pre-human Jesus being the 'beginning of the creation by God'. The beginning start of God's first creation. - Proverbs 8:22

I am familiar with that position and after much meditation, I wouldn't subscribe to that position.

I think John Gill expressed it well when, in his commentary, he penned:

the firstborn of every creature;
not the first of the creation, or the first creature God made; for all things in ( Colossians 1:16 ) are said to be created by him, and therefore he himself can never be a creature; nor is he the first in the new creation, for the apostle in the context is speaking of the old creation, and not the new: but the sense either is, that he was begotten of the Father in a manner inconceivable and inexpressible by men, before any creatures were in being; or that he is the "first Parent", or bringer forth of every creature into being, as the word will bear to be rendered, if instead of (prwt) (tokov) , we read (prwtot) (kov) ; which is no more than changing the place of the accent, and may be very easily ventured upon, as is done by an ancient writer F7, who observes, that the word is used in this sense by Homer, and is the same as (prwtogonov) , "first Parent", and (prwtoktisthv) , "first Creator"; and the rather this may be done, seeing the accents were all added since the apostle's days, and especially seeing it makes his reasoning, in the following verses, appear with much more beauty, strength, and force: he is the first Parent of every creature, "for by him were all things created" ( Colossians 1:16 ) , or it may be understood of Christ, as the King, Lord, and Governor of all creatures; being God's firstborn, he is heir of all things, the right of government belongs to him; he is higher than the kings of the earth, or the angels in heaven, the highest rank of creatures, being the Creator and upholder of all, as the following words show; so the Jews make the word "firstborn" to be synonymous with the word "king", and explain it by (rvw lwdg) , "a great one", and "a prince" F8; see ( Psalms 89:27 ) ( Hebrews 1:2 Hebrews 1:6 ) .

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Psalms 89:27 A corresponds to Psalms 2:7 and Hebrews 1:5 regarding first born.
Psalms 89:27 B corresponds to Revelation 1:5 besides Revelation 19:16 referring to Jesus.
After all Jesus is King of God's Kingdom for a thousand years - 1 Corinthians 15:24-26
Hebrews 1:2 corresponds to Matthew 17:5 that God speaks to us by His Son
Hebrews 1:6 A - First born corresponding to John 1:14; Romans 8:29 back to Colossians 1:15

 

[Redemptionsong]

I am reminded of Revelation where God reserved 144,000 Israelites to become preachers of the Gospel.

Enjoying your breakdown of scriptures.

It is amazing that two groups of people, Jews and Christians, should share a common scripture, the Tanakh, and yet see such different messages.

It's not unlike those visual puzzles that involve staring at a dot! Some people are able to see the hidden picture, and others are not! Our minds can be so orientated to seeing things one 'way' that other options simply don't exist.

I believe Rabbi Singer is giving an 'either/or' option regarding the interpretation of scripture. I think he overlooks the 'both' reality. To my understanding, the earthly and heavenly stand side-by-side, and the Tanakh should be interpreted that way.

Jesus helped to educate us by speaking in parables!

 

[Kenny]

It is amazing that two groups of people, Jews and Christians, should share a common scripture, the Tanakh, and yet see such different messages.

It's not unlike those visual puzzles that involve staring at a dot! Some people are able to see the hidden picture, and others are not! Our minds can be so orientated to seeing things one 'way' that other options simply don't exist.

I believe Rabbi Singer is giving an 'either/or' option regarding the interpretation of scripture. I think he overlooks the 'both' reality. To my understanding, the earthly and heavenly stand side-by-side, and the Tanakh should be interpreted that way.

Jesus helped to educate us by speaking in parables!

I have used that analogy too. I simply say that the picture is revealed in the NT but that the visual puzzle was the TaNaKh.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

In the realm of God's capacity, of course He could. But could and will are two different stories.

In as much as Jesus accomplished all as the First and the Last and as the Alpha and Omega, no other needs to come.

The purpose of Jesus was to open the door so that man could be in full communion with God again. Mission accomplished. (within the context of m signature)

Missions still yet to be accomplished, coming back again, reigning for 1000 years, destroying the Destroyer and Hell, and restoring earth to its full glory. (Of course there may be others -- I'm not omniscient.)

Ok.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Solomon asked the question, But will God in very deed dwell with men upon the earth? [2 Chronicles 6:18].

The ambiguity of scripture makes it appear as if Solomon was to build God's temple. But the temple the earthly Solomon was to build was a temporal structure into which the Ark of the Covenant was to be placed. This picture leads us to consider the everlasting temple of God, which is to be built by God Himself.

In coming to earth in the person of Jesus, God dwells on earth in a man. This fleshly appearance was necessary in order to make the acceptable offering for sin. So Jesus offered himself for the sin of mankind, and because his sacrifice was acceptable to the Father, Jesus was raised to eternal life, and to glory. From the throne in heaven, Jesus Christ sends the Holy Spirit, by which the spiritual temple, the Church, the body of Christ, is built.

On earth, dwelling amongst men, Jesus Christ is 'God with us'. He is fully man and fully God. In resurrection Jesus becomes 'My Lord and my God', as Thomas rightly exclaimed [John 20:27]. He becomes head of the Church, and worthy of worship.

Certainly. But there may be other sons.

 

[3rdAngel]

It is amazing that two groups of people, Jews and Christians, should share a common scripture, the Tanakh, and yet see such different messages.

It's not unlike those visual puzzles that involve staring at a dot! Some people are able to see the hidden picture, and others are not! Our minds can be so orientated to seeing things one 'way' that other options simply don't exist.

I believe Rabbi Singer is giving an 'either/or' option regarding the interpretation of scripture. I think he overlooks the 'both' reality. To my understanding, the earthly and heavenly stand side-by-side, and the Tanakh should be interpreted that way.

Jesus helped to educate us by speaking in parables!

According to the new covenant scriptures, just like Gods' Israel is no longer only those born of the seed of Abraham in the flesh, a Jew is no longer those who are born of the flesh but are now all those who have been born of the Spirit by faith.

• Romans 2:28-29 28, For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29, But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

• Galatians 3:28-29 28, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29, And if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

None of us can know Gods' Word unless Gods Spirit is our guide and teacher (see John 14:26; John 16:13; John 7:17; 1 John 2:27). This is a part of God's new covenant promise from Hebrews 8:10-12.

God bless

 

[2ndpillar]

Interestingly, although Jacob 'shall be called no more Jacob', we discover that Jacob, son of Isaac, continues to be called Jacob, but interspersed with 'Israel'. Why is this?

Jacob, who was renamed Israel, passed his name to Joseph, and Joseph passed his name to Ephraim. The Jacob/Israel had 12 initial sons, with Joseph being split into two tribes. The name Israel can refer to the Jacob, or his 12 original sons, or it can refer to Ephraim, the 10 northern tribes, the "lost sheep of Israel". As for the "first born", with respect to Psalm 89, that would be "David" (Psalm 89:3-4) or his "seed". The "seed" is the one to be set up on a throne "forever". David would be the son of Judah.

Do you think Rabbi Singer's claims about Israel as the 'firstborn son' are legitimate? Is it not possible that 'Israel' 'my firstborn' refers to BOTH head and body, to both Messiah and his followers?

The "body" would be "My sanctuary"/tabernacle in the future (Ezekiel 37:19-28) and would include both Judah and Ephraim/Israel forever.

 

[Shaul]

Tovia Singer got this one WRONG,
The Promise was to Abraham SEED, and not Seeds as in many, only ONE, Christ.
Galatians 3:16 "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Galatians 3:17 "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Galatians 3:18 "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise."

and he got the replacement Theory Wrong also. because as said above the promise was made in Christ even before the Jews became a Nation, Galatians 3:19 "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." Galatians 3:20 "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one." Galatians 3:21 "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." Galatians 3:22 "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." Galatians 3:23 "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." Galatians 3:24 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, (ONE MIGHT WANT TO READ THAT AGAIN), that we might be justified by faith." Galatians 3:25 "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."

this is why we have a NEW COVENANT, for God our Mediator, the Lord Jesus, the Ordinal Last, is out TEACHER and GUIDE in all TRUTH. this is why in Jeremiah 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:"Jeremiah 31:32 "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:" Jeremiah 31:33 "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." Jeremiah 31:34 "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

so another ERROR by the Rabbi. Israel is not to teach other Nations.... that's God, the Lord Jesus job. that's why he is given, or was poured out on Pentecost. for the Holy Spirit is our TEACHER, and GUIDE, that's why he is Called the Spirit of GRACE and SUPPLICATIONS, supportive scripture, Romans 8:26 "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

that's God our mediator, who is the Lord JESUS, our "advocate", who is the intercessor. for the term "advocate" in the Greek is
G3875 παράκλητος parakletos (pa-ra'-klee-tos) n.
1. (properly) one called near (to give help).
2. an intercessor (one who entreats of behalf of another).
3. a comforter.
[(not given)]
KJV: advocate, comforter

yes, the SEED that was promise Abraham, God himself ..... the ARM of God in Flesh. yes, Jesus who is God, (Spirit), FATHER/OT, the Ordinal First. and God, Jesus "SHARED" Equally in (Flesh), Son/NT, the Ordinal Last.

and God taught us as MAN to MAN, for he is our EXAMPLE. .... Hear ye him.
so, there was never a replacement theory, and the Jews was never a Teacher and Guide to the World..... God is, by dwelling in us.

for we are a Royal Priesthood not of the Levitical Order but of the universal order of Melchisedec, the King of righteousness, (Salem), and the Prince of PEACE, as Isaiah 9:6 states.

so no Replacement Theory, no Jewish teaching, and (those in Christ, Jesus, born again), are his Priest, supportive scripture, 1 Peter 2:9 "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:"

we who is called out of EGYPT in Christ, and again the Rabbi got Matthews wrong also. we are the CHOSEN ONES. for who is a JEW? let's check the record. Romans 2:28 "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:" Romans 2:29 "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

so the Rabbi has no clue who is God "Son" either.

101G.

Nope.

"Seed" in Hebrew ("zerah") is a collective noun. Similarly as the English word sheep is a collective noun. The word "zerah" doesn't take a plural because it already is a plural. In English you wouldn't say "Bring me all of my sheeps." Similarly in Hebrew you don't pluralize the word "zerah" and it applies to a group, not an individual. This is clear from the multiple uses of "zerah" in scripture using context showing it is a plural, not a singular. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Hebrew would know this.

Indeed your quotation of Galatians is an excellent proof against the New Testament. Its target audience was, of course, gentiles. Gentiles who, by and large, are ignorant of the Hebrew language. The putative author of Galatians, Paul of Tarsus, was either ignorant of how the word was used in the Hebrew scriptures or exploiting a similar ignorance of his target audience. In either case that is a strike against the Christian New Testament being holy writ.

 

[Shaul]

When God created, in the beginning, he created both heaven and earth. Heaven is spiritual and eternal, and earth is temporal. This is God's parable of life.

When one applies this parable to Hebrew scripture, it becomes apparent that all scripture is written with double meaning. That's why so many passages are ambiguous and equivocal. It's because, in every story, there is a figure or type of Christ.

Israel, as an assembly of tribes, is God's temporal nation. Yet, in Christ, lsrael becomes an everlasting spiritual temple.

From your understanding of the Tanakh, do you think all lsrael will be saved, or just a remnant?

It's not "apparent" that all scripture has a double meaning at all. Christians repeat this, but that doesn't make it so. Christians made that theological concept up out of whole cloth. They believe in Jesus and then go back and "see" their Christ in scriptures wherein he doesn't exist.

 

[101G]

"Seed" in Hebrew ("zerah") is a collective noun. Similarly as the English word sheep is a collective noun. The word "zerah" doesn't take a plural because it already is a plural. In English you wouldn't say "Bring me all of my sheeps." Similarly in Hebrew you don't pluralize the word "zerah" and it applies to a group, not an individual. This is clear from the multiple uses of "zerah" in scripture using context showing it is a plural, not a singular. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Hebrew would know this.

I disagree, the sheep is in one. listen, did not the apostle Paul knew this when he wrote Galatians was not Shiloh, ONE to gather the People? yes or No. your answer please.

101G.