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

[2ndpillar]

Josephus never confessed to lying. Quite the opposite, he fought hard to convince the readers of the truthfulness of what he wrote.

Well, Josephus was not Eusebius, but they held the same type of position, which was political in nature. Both had close ties with the Roman emperors, and that can be a little touchy. I am just pointing out the facts, and one can judge on their own. It is best to know the depth of the pool before one jumps in, if they can't swim. I have no reason to either trust him or not, but at least he was contemporary with some of what he was writing about. An honest man doesn't have to convince someone he is telling the truth. If one is honest, they will say just take it or leave it and that they can try and find a second source to confirm anything that is presented.

 

[River Sea]

The name Israel is an overloaded one that can refer either to the single person (Jacob the son of Isaac, who was given the new name Israel) or to the collective people called the nation of Israel.
Definition of ISRAEL
The meaning is context specific.

You asked if the sons of Jacob and the sons of Israel are the same. The answer is yes. This is clear from the book of Isaiah (Yeshayahu). It contains multiple dualism of the names Jacob/Israel.

Tovia Singer got this one right.

Jacob was Isaac's second child; Esau, Jacob's fraternal twin brother, was the oldest. So, what became of Esau? How did Jacob become Israel's firstborn son? What about Esau—why can't he take the nation of Israel as well? I think it's a wonderful idea that both brothers be Israelis. Abraham, are you advocating for all of humanity? Isn't that what the letter H stands for? Include all.

 

[Mark La Buda]

I have been listening to Rabbi Tovia Singer arguing that Israel is the firstborn of God. In so doing, he makes the case that Jesus Christ cannot, therefore, be the firstborn of God, and that Christians who hold to such a belief are guilty of 'replacement theology'.

I think he is wrong, at least in part, and I'd like to explain where I think he is in error.

Here's a passage to lead us in:
Exodus 4:22. 'And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:'

So, 'Israel' is here assumed to be a reference to the children of Israel. Thereafter, Rabbi Singer will make the case that the firstborn son is consistently a reference to the children of Israel, brought together by God, under Moses, and under the Torah.

I would now like to ask, Where is Israel first mentioned in scripture?

Genesis 32:28. 'And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob ['following after, supplanter'], but Israel ['ruling with God']: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed'.

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?

The children of Jacob [Joshua 24:4] have a father, Jacob. Do the 'children of Israel' have a father, Israel? If so, what is the difference between the 'children of Jacob' and the 'children of Israel'?

The reason I make this distinction is because I think it matters. The children are a product of their father. Are the 'children of Israel' the ones who see God 'face to face' [Genesis 32:30]?

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?

It seem to me that “Israel is my son, my firstborn” is symbolic, a metaphor. As such, Israel was the “firstborn” with relation to the covenant made with Abraham.

 

[Redemptionsong]

It seem to me that “Israel is my son, my firstborn” is symbolic, a metaphor. As such, Israel was the “firstborn” with relation to the covenant made with Abraham.

Do you mean that lsrael is the firstborn by faith in Christ?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do you mean that lsrael is the firstborn by faith in Christ?

No. The verse where God says Israel is his firstborn son never mentions the messiah. The messiah is irrelevant to the verse.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No. The verse where God says Israel is his firstborn son never mentions the messiah. The messiah is irrelevant to the verse.

I don't think the Messiah is irrelevant to the verse. The point about 'lsrael' is that lsrael as a people comes from Israel the individual. The seed is both singular, and plural.

This is a shadow of the Messiah, the seed of promise.

 

[2ndpillar]

I don't think the Messiah is irrelevant to the verse. The point about 'lsrael' is that lsrael as a people comes from Israel the individual. The seed is both singular, and plural.

This is a shadow of the Messiah, the seed of promise.

The "seed" of promise is the seed of "David" (Psalm 89:35-36). A promise was given to Jacob. (Genesis 28:13) As for the coming king, the anointed one, the messiah, that would be king David (Ezekiel 37:24-25), ruling over Israel on the land give to Jacob.

Psalm 89:35-36
“Once I have sworn by My holiness;
I will not lie to David.
“His descendants shall endure forever
And his throne as the sun before

There above it stood the Lord and He said: ‘I am the Lord, the God of you Father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying.’” Genesis 28:13

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do you mean that lsrael is the firstborn by faith in Christ?

No. The verse where God says Israel is his firstborn son never mentions the messiah. The messiah is irrelevant to the verse.

I don't think the Messiah is irrelevant to the verse. The point about 'lsrael' is that lsrael as a people comes from Israel the individual. The seed is both singular, and plural.

This is a shadow of the Messiah, the seed of promise.

Israel the person is the son of Isaac. But the Israel in Exodus 4:22 is not that man. It is his descendants, the 12 tribes of Israel, the People of Israel. That is who God is delivering from Egypt.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The "seed" of promise is the seed of "David" (Psalm 89:35-36). A promise was given to Jacob. (Genesis 28:13) As for the coming king, the anointed one, the messiah, that would be king David (Ezekiel 37:24-25), ruling over Israel on the land give to Jacob.

Psalm 89:35-36
“Once I have sworn by My holiness;
I will not lie to David.
“His descendants shall endure forever
And his throne as the sun before

There above it stood the Lord and He said: ‘I am the Lord, the God of you Father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying.’” Genesis 28:13

The promised seed goes all the way back to Eve, Genesis 3:15.

The promise can then be followed through Abraham, and on to David, as the genealogies of Jesus demonstrate.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No. The verse where God says Israel is his firstborn son never mentions the messiah. The messiah is irrelevant to the verse.

Israel the person is the son of Isaac. But the Israel in Exodus 4:22 is not that man. It is his descendants, the 12 tribes of Israel, the People of Israel. That is who God is delivering from Egypt.

The Messiah is not mentioned by name in many passages of prophecy. But the whole of scripture points to him!

Scripture is a parable of earth and heaven, and to limit one's understanding of scripture to the earthly story is to miss the meaning! Christ is everywhere in the scriptures, you just have to have the eyes to see him.

The shadow, or type of the Messiah, is found in the figures of the Torah. Just as the tribes of lsrael are the seed of lsrael (Jacob), the twelve apostles are the seed of Christ, spiritually.

Israel was taken out of Egypt (symbolic of the world), in order that they might enter the Promised Land (God's kingdom). Law was provided whilst in the wilderness, so as to keep the people and prepare them for entry into God's kingdom. Moses, representing the Law, was not permitted to take lsrael into the Promised Land. It fell to Joshua (the Saviour), to lead the people through the waters of the Jordan into the Promised Land.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The promised seed goes all the way back to Eve, Genesis 3:15.

The promise can then be followed through Abraham, and on to David, as the genealogies of Jesus demonstrate.

The seed in Gen 3:15 is the human race. It's simply talking about how humans hate snakes.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Messiah is not mentioned by name in many passages of prophecy. But the whole of scripture points to him!

Sure and I'll give you a bunch of other verses that are about Jesus too. Wow, we can make EVERY verse about Jesus.

I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I ate no bread and drank no water. Deut 9:9 Wow, this MUST be referring to Jesus fasting in the wilderness!!!!


Enoch walked faithfully with God Gen 5:24 Wow, Jesus walked with God too! Thus just MUST be a messianic prophecy


She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.” Gen 16:13 Wow, and THIS verse clearly says Jesus is God! Never mind that I'm totally yanking it out of context LOL

Forgive my sarcasm, but this "ability" for Christians to see Jesus on every page is a real irritant.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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?

I think they are legitimately his opinions, and I think he is genuinely concerned. If Dr. Singer were to directly attack Christianity he would probably also wind up hurting Judaism, too. He is attempting a very shallow and superficial cut, avoiding main arteries and such. He opposes conversions of Jews to Christianity. Unless there is some reason to think that Jews need to convert it is not problematic. What he is aiming at is the modern messianic movement and one of its particular approaches of converting Jews through arguments about prophetic writings. Maybe he annoys messianic Christians a little, but he's not aiming to stamp out Christ.

 

[2ndpillar]

The promised seed goes all the way back to Eve, Genesis 3:15.

The promise can then be followed through Abraham, and on to David, as the genealogies of Jesus demonstrate.

You are reaching. The promise of Gen 3:15 was between the seed of the "serpent"/"devil", and that of the woman, who was to be ruled" by her "husband" (Gen 3:16). Do you submit to your husband, assuming you have a male husband? As for genealogies, well there are two different genealogies, one of Matthew and one of Luke, but the promise was with respect to the seed of David. The "seed" of Abraham included Essau, in whom I "hate". (Malachi 1:3)

“Wasn’t Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “I loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I hated. I turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the jackals in the desert.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Sure and I'll give you a bunch of other verses that are about Jesus too. Wow, we can make EVERY verse about Jesus.

I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I ate no bread and drank no water. Deut 9:9 Wow, this MUST be referring to Jesus fasting in the wilderness!!!!


Enoch walked faithfully with God Gen 5:24 Wow, Jesus walked with God too! Thus just MUST be a messianic prophecy


She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.” Gen 16:13 Wow, and THIS verse clearly says Jesus is God! Never mind that I'm totally yanking it out of context LOL

Forgive my sarcasm, but this "ability" for Christians to see Jesus on every page is a real irritant.

What should be persuasive to you, as you look to find a Messiah with legitimate Davidic credentials, is that Jesus' genealogies demonstrate that he has every right to be considered the Messiah.

Jesus mediates perfectly between God and man. Not only does he have the royal Davidic lineage, but he can also claim to be the Son of God.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I think they are legitimately his opinions, and I think he is genuinely concerned. If Dr. Singer were to directly attack Christianity he would probably also wind up hurting Judaism, too. He is attempting a very shallow and superficial cut, avoiding main arteries and such. He opposes conversions of Jews to Christianity. Unless there is some reason to think that Jews need to convert it is not problematic. What he is aiming at is the modern messianic movement and one of its particular approaches of converting Jews through arguments about prophetic writings. Maybe he annoys messianic Christians a little, but he's not aiming to stamp out Christ.

I think he is directly attacking Christianity, and he pulls no punches in doing so!

Tovia Singer does not restrict his comments to passages from the Tanakh, but argues that the New Testament is an unreliable testimony. He attacks the teachings of Paul, in particular.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You are reaching. The promise of Gen 3:15 was between the seed of the "serpent"/"devil", and that of the woman, who was to be ruled" by her "husband" (Gen 3:16). Do you submit to your husband, assuming you have a male husband? As for genealogies, well there are two different genealogies, one of Matthew and one of Luke, but the promise was with respect to the seed of David. The "seed" of Abraham included Essau, in whom I "hate". (Malachi 1:3)

“Wasn’t Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “I loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I hated. I turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the jackals in the desert.

Two distinct genealogies are required to show that the Messiah is both the Son of God and the Son of man.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What should be persuasive to you, as you look to find a Messiah with legitimate Davidic credentials, is that Jesus' genealogies demonstrate that he has every right to be considered the Messiah.

Jesus genealogies, even if they could be trusted, are worthless. Although Jewish identity passes through the mother, tribal affiliation passes only through the bio-dad. That includes Davidic lineage. You can claim Jesus to be of Davidic lineage, OR you can claim a virgin birth BUT YOU CANNOT CLAIM BOTH. The lineage of any step father or adoptive father is worthless -- it does not establish Davidic descent. Nor does any genealogy of his mom -- utterly worthless.

Jesus mediates perfectly between God and man. Not only does he have the royal Davidic lineage, but he can also claim to be the Son of God.

I do not need a mediator. I go straight to God. No middle man necessary.

 

[2ndpillar]

Two distinct genealogies are required to show that the Messiah is both the Son of God and the Son of man.

Both genealogies start with Abraham and David, and it was David who was the one given the "promise". As "Mary" is not "God", and that she does not produce "seed", then including her genealogy is a bit spurious, and reflects what someone told "Luke" (Luke 1:1-3) and has no relevance to the promise given to David whose seed would rule (have throne) forever.

 

[2ndpillar]

The seed in Gen 3:15 is the human race. It's simply talking about how humans hate snakes.

It seems more probable that the "women" will hate snakes, as Eve is the one who was fooled by the snake, and therefore she would give birth in pain, and be subject to her husband (Gen 3:16).