Why did God choose Israel?
- Thread starter jsr1221
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D
An Angel appeared to Zacharias here
Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,
a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia:
and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron,
and her name was Elisabeth.
The angel that appeared to Mary, points out they are related
Luke 1:36 And, behold , thy cousin Elisabeth,
she hath also conceived a son in her old age:
and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
So of Johns parents,
Zacharias a priest of the course of Abia and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron here
Mary being a cousin or relative of the same
Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,
a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia:
and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron,
and her name was Elisabeth.
The angel that appeared to Mary, points out they are related
Luke 1:36 And, behold , thy cousin Elisabeth,
she hath also conceived a son in her old age:
and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
So of Johns parents,
Zacharias a priest of the course of Abia and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron here
Mary being a cousin or relative of the same
D
Which scriptures speak of Judah in a way that applies to Mary thats what I am not getting.
Even the Pharisees teachers were called together and were asked WHERE He would be born, they understood by the scriptures and pointed out Micah of our Lord springing out from Judah which Hebrews says is evident, but doesnt go into persons, other then the sign to the House of David (of which Joseph was)
I cant figure out which scripture contradicts itself unless its the way we are reasoning with it.
I just lay out what I find, I leave it to others to contradict the scriptures
Even the Pharisees teachers were called together and were asked WHERE He would be born, they understood by the scriptures and pointed out Micah of our Lord springing out from Judah which Hebrews says is evident, but doesnt go into persons, other then the sign to the House of David (of which Joseph was)
I cant figure out which scripture contradicts itself unless its the way we are reasoning with it.
I just lay out what I find, I leave it to others to contradict the scriptures
Fascinating.
Valiant is right - Romans 1 does say that Jesus was "of the seed of David according to the flesh".
So even if Joseph is seen as his adoptive father, we can safely rule him out of the equation because of the "according to the flesh" bit.
Which actually makes one wonder why the writers of Matthew or Luke bothered about his genealogy anyway. Isn't it irrelevant ?
SO, the only way for Jesus to be born in the right tribe ('according to the flesh')is for Mary to be in the tribe of Judah.
(Even that is fairly dodgy because tribal lineage was generally determined by the father - but OK).
Now it gets interesting. Nowhere does the New Testament make that claim.
In fact it very, very strongly suggests that she was a Levite - like her "cousin" Elizabeth.
The Greek word translated as 'cousin' in most bibles is "suyyenis".
The vast majority of genuine, impartial biblical scholars agree that "suyvenis" clearly implies very close kinship - indeed, kin of the same tribe, and is translated elsewhere as 'tribesman' or similar.
Some may ask "who cares ?"
The problem is that it throws doubt on the whole 'virgin birth' story.
Valiant is right - Romans 1 does say that Jesus was "of the seed of David according to the flesh".
So even if Joseph is seen as his adoptive father, we can safely rule him out of the equation because of the "according to the flesh" bit.
Which actually makes one wonder why the writers of Matthew or Luke bothered about his genealogy anyway. Isn't it irrelevant ?
SO, the only way for Jesus to be born in the right tribe ('according to the flesh')is for Mary to be in the tribe of Judah.
(Even that is fairly dodgy because tribal lineage was generally determined by the father - but OK).
Now it gets interesting. Nowhere does the New Testament make that claim.
In fact it very, very strongly suggests that she was a Levite - like her "cousin" Elizabeth.
The Greek word translated as 'cousin' in most bibles is "suyyenis".
The vast majority of genuine, impartial biblical scholars agree that "suyvenis" clearly implies very close kinship - indeed, kin of the same tribe, and is translated elsewhere as 'tribesman' or similar.
Some may ask "who cares ?"
The problem is that it throws doubt on the whole 'virgin birth' story.
Last edited:
D
You are going to get me here because I can only go by what the scriptures declare not what isnt there, they (who rejected Jesus Christ) apparently understood by scripture where exactly Christ was to be born as it pertained to Judaea according to the prophet Micah and the Lord springing out from there being made of a woman under the law (given under the levitical priesthood) she being espoused to Joseph (who was of the lineage of David) and called a son of David himself.
Even those who rejected Jesus Christ point out how they understood he would be born (and where). This didnt seem to be an issue even in scripture but said to be quite evident, whereas for us this is not quite as evident from what I am understanding.
Are we trying to prove Jesus Christ or make him invalid to being the Christ? I dont know if I am speaking to athiests or christians (or both)?
I often find its how we could be reasoning with a thing.
I know that this is more the case as it always ends up being the case after you take a closer look, but that is how it has always been with me when seeking to prove a thing out.
This is a good thing to come up, I typically love these challenges even for myself, as they keep me busying proving Jesus Christ more accurately (which is what I am always hoping to do far better).
Although I will admit, I am really bad with math geography and most especially detest genealogies, and I will have to apply myself to look into this further.
Wont be any time soon, I certainly cant say I have this ironed out as best I can even for myself, but I take these things up time and again and Im adding this one to another look from that angle, the more angles you have the ends tied in together the better thats for sure.
Even those who rejected Jesus Christ point out how they understood he would be born (and where). This didnt seem to be an issue even in scripture but said to be quite evident, whereas for us this is not quite as evident from what I am understanding.
Are we trying to prove Jesus Christ or make him invalid to being the Christ? I dont know if I am speaking to athiests or christians (or both)?
I often find its how we could be reasoning with a thing.
I know that this is more the case as it always ends up being the case after you take a closer look, but that is how it has always been with me when seeking to prove a thing out.
This is a good thing to come up, I typically love these challenges even for myself, as they keep me busying proving Jesus Christ more accurately (which is what I am always hoping to do far better).
Although I will admit, I am really bad with math geography and most especially detest genealogies, and I will have to apply myself to look into this further.
Wont be any time soon, I certainly cant say I have this ironed out as best I can even for myself, but I take these things up time and again and Im adding this one to another look from that angle, the more angles you have the ends tied in together the better thats for sure.
D
And also in the "likeness of" the flesh as well
Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
In the flesh, after the flesh, according to the flesh, and in the likeness of sinful flesh.
It's my opinion that God chose Israel for the same reason He chose Abraham:
Gen 18:19 "For I know him (Abraham), that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him."
God foreknew and saw something in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Israel that God did not see in others. God foreknew Abraham will, not might, but will command his children after him. God foreknew a difference between Israel and Edom (Gen 25:23) thereby chose Israel with Israel being the better choice. God foreknew that He would be able to accomplish His will by the obedience of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Israel. None of them had perfect obedience but God foreknew they would all be obedient enough that He may "bring upon Abraham that which He had spoken".
P
[h=1]Romans 11 King James Version (KJV)[/h]11 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear
unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I 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 Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear
unto this day.9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I 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 Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
It is far from irrelevant. It was as the adopted son of Joseph and therefore of David that Jesus was a prince of the house of David. He could not have obtained that through Mary. What He obtained from Mary was being a son of David according to the flesh.
tribal lineage was a fluid thing. If you were adopted by a man of Judah you became a man of Judah,
It suggests nothing of the kind. It leaves the matter quite open. Mary lived in Nazareth and was betrothed to a man of Judah. Unlike Elizabeth who being a Levite married a priest.
LOL LOL how can you possibly know what the vast majority of genuine impartial (i.e. believe what you believe)scholars say.? sungene means 'related to', fellow-countryman, fellow-citizen' it has no such emphasis as you suggest.
what you mean is that that is the implication you are trying to make with your pseudo greek?
tribal lineage was a fluid thing. If you were adopted by a man of Judah you became a man of Judah,
It suggests nothing of the kind. It leaves the matter quite open. Mary lived in Nazareth and was betrothed to a man of Judah. Unlike Elizabeth who being a Levite married a priest.
LOL LOL how can you possibly know what the vast majority of genuine impartial (i.e. believe what you believe)scholars say.? sungene means 'related to', fellow-countryman, fellow-citizen' it has no such emphasis as you suggest.
what you mean is that that is the implication you are trying to make with your pseudo greek?
D
Valiant the first part of your reponse caused me to remember another question of mine, and Im shooting it in your direction because of how you worded "prince of the house of David"
Its this part here (the way it is worded...
Mat 2:6 And thou Bethlehem,in the land of Juda,
art not the least among the princes of Juda:
for out of thee shall come a Governor,
that shall rule my people Israel.
Like, why is it written that way?
Because there (as I keep on rolling it around, seems to be calling THOU (Bethlehem) OF the land of Juda A PRINCE (of among other princes)
(although, not him in particular there) but rather Bethlehem itself (a prince)
For out of thee (Bethlehem of Juda) shall come (the him) a Governor.
Its stuff like that I will mind that can drive me bonkers
But that adoptive thing you pointed out, thats how I was wondering about it in respects to the seed (even that promised to David) and the raising of this seed (even the word of promise) up for another is also shown in what was practiced among themselves.
Like, one might be of the son by nature of one father (according to the flesh) as he was likewise made of the seed of David according to the flesh (he being made in the likeness of sinful flesh) but on the otherhand conceived by a different Father (even by the Holy Ghost) according to the promise (which is likewise according to the law).
So using those things practiced among themselves to consider the two natures (according to the promise) one after the flesh in one sense of it and the other according to the Spirit in another, Son of man, Son of God, but being the seed of the woman (wife espoused to a Son of David, Joseph of house and lineage of the same) where these two (even before coming together are considered one flesh in this thing.
Okay, I am rambling and shouldnt thnk aloud but I liked your post and your got my wheels spinning, so thanks
Its this part here (the way it is worded...
Mat 2:6 And thou Bethlehem,in the land of Juda,
art not the least among the princes of Juda:
for out of thee shall come a Governor,
that shall rule my people Israel.
Like, why is it written that way?
Because there (as I keep on rolling it around, seems to be calling THOU (Bethlehem) OF the land of Juda A PRINCE (of among other princes)
(although, not him in particular there) but rather Bethlehem itself (a prince)
For out of thee (Bethlehem of Juda) shall come (the him) a Governor.
Its stuff like that I will mind that can drive me bonkers
But that adoptive thing you pointed out, thats how I was wondering about it in respects to the seed (even that promised to David) and the raising of this seed (even the word of promise) up for another is also shown in what was practiced among themselves.
Like, one might be of the son by nature of one father (according to the flesh) as he was likewise made of the seed of David according to the flesh (he being made in the likeness of sinful flesh) but on the otherhand conceived by a different Father (even by the Holy Ghost) according to the promise (which is likewise according to the law).
So using those things practiced among themselves to consider the two natures (according to the promise) one after the flesh in one sense of it and the other according to the Spirit in another, Son of man, Son of God, but being the seed of the woman (wife espoused to a Son of David, Joseph of house and lineage of the same) where these two (even before coming together are considered one flesh in this thing.
Okay, I am rambling and shouldnt thnk aloud but I liked your post and your got my wheels spinning, so thanks
God didnt choose Isreal, I think the question is why did God choose Abraham, and the answer would be... God chose Abraham because he found favour in God's eyes, most likely due to his refusal to worship the pagan gods as was mostly practiced during his time, in the land he lived in, and most likey due to his faithfull heart, as it was seen that he was willing to serve even at the cost of his son
God did not choose Israel, God chose Abram.
Genesis 12:2-3 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
And I will bless them that bless thee, and I will curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall ALL families of the earth be blessed.
In this covenant, God pronounces blessings for all people through the action that God and Abraham has entered into agreement on.
Genesis 12:2-3 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
And I will bless them that bless thee, and I will curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall ALL families of the earth be blessed.
In this covenant, God pronounces blessings for all people through the action that God and Abraham has entered into agreement on.