Is the New Covenant for Israel only?

[eternally-gratefull]

I dont get it....you say Israel as a whole is blinded. WHO is Israel?

I can understand the confusion here (at least partly)

Paul spent much of his writings telling us there was no difference between jew and gentile. We are all one under Christ.

However, if you read the passage I showed. He said there is a difference.

1. Jew, as natural branches, were grafted out (cut off due to unbelief) gentile, as unnatural branches, are grafted in. Here already we see the general tone of most of pauls writtings has changed. He is not saying jew and gentile are one, there is no difference. He is separating the two.

as for your question. If gentiles are non Israelites. and he is not talking about the church here. Who are the Israel? Remember in the OT where a prophet said he was the only one left. And God said he has a remnant. Paul uses the same language here. Isreal is only blinded "in part" (meaning not all Israel has rejected Christ. there are saved people from the twelve tribes of Israel.) Israel in a non gentile. Or of the lineage of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.

All the people trying to use other passages where paul says there is no difference e between jew and gentile do not apply here. Paul did separate jew and gentile. Thus national Isreal. And not the church, must be applied to Israel in romans 11.

Are "Jews" Israel? If so, how can a jew be a participant in the New Covenant if Israel as a whole is blinded?

I used bad language. I I don't even know what word to use. I can only try to explain. In the OT Israel had the oracles of God. But a gentile could be saved also (think nineva and other gentiles) But the Gentiles as a unit rejected God. Just like now. There are people from Israel who are saved. But israel as a unit has rejected god. As Paul said. they have been blinded in "part" Not all have rejected their messiah.

If jews are Israel and the blindness will be removed one day, is there any point in a jew BEING a participant in the New Covenant now? Are there any jews in the new covenant now?

Why wouldn't they be? We want all jews to reject God living today and the last 2000 years just because they are jews? The point is right now (and the last 2000 years) they as a nation has rejected Christ. A few have receive him. But one day they as a nation will have their blindness removed and they as a nation will return to God and repent and receive Christ.

...for that matter..

Who is a jew?

I am not sure if your being silly here or not. But just in case you are serious. A jew is the name of people who lived in the lower part of Israel (from the tribes of Dan and Judah) they called that land judah ad the inhabitants jews.

Israel were the other ten tribes who were removed from their land by Syrian because of unbelief. The land was called Israel

but Israel, when spoken of in the NT would include all 12 tribes.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 are explicitly clear that it replaces the Mosaic covenant, not fulfills or replaces the Abrahamic.

Yes. This is true. In the OT. A gentile could also get in through the mosaic covenant there was previsions for them. It is just the jews had control. Under the new covenant. right now the gentiles have control because isreal rejected her messiah. But paul makes it clear. one day they will repent, and they will again regain control. because the gentiles have been grafted out, (rejected God)

 

[zone]

In Abraham's seed (Jesus) all the nations of the earth will be blessed. We have reconciliation with God on the basis of Christ's finished work, without reference to the New Covenant. The inheritance that belongs to Jew and Gentile alike by faith is God's Holy Spirit.

*scratches head*
how is anyone jew or gentile reconciled to God outside or without the New Covenant?
how many Covenants are there DM?

the inheritence is the Holy Spirit???
the Holy Spirit is the pledge, or earnest, or down payment on our inheritance, which is eternal life with the Lord, DM.
in a city not continuing here.

 

[zone]

Not sure he calls the church the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). To whom exactly he is refering is vague, but it seems that it is NOT the Galatians.

Being grafted into the olive tree does not make one and Israelite, it makes one a beneficiary of the root that supports the olive tree.

Paul also does not say that Gentiles have become citizens of the commonwealth of Israel, only that they were formerly excluded from the commonwealth of Israel. Citizenship and inclusion are quite different.

PS- I'm not a dispensationalist, so how do you discredit me?

why does Paul include himself with the New Covenant Church who inherits New Jerusalem as sons of the freewoman (New Covenant), making it clear he is not in bondage to the Old Covenant (Sinai, present Jerusalem)?

Galatians 4
Sons and Heirs
1I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave,a though he is the owner of everything, 2but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. 3In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principlesb of the world. 4But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Paul’s Concern for the Galatians
8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. 9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

12Brothers,c I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong. 13You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, 14and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. 15What then has become of the blessing you felt? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me. 16Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?d 17They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them. 18It is always good to be made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you, 19my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you! 20I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

Example of Hagar and Sarah
21Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;e she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

28Now you,f brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

he-e-e-e-e-e-y......
is this that New Perspective on Paul thingee again?

Old Perspective on Paul
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/new_p.html

New Perspective on Paul
New Perspective on Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


course, here's where this came from and where it's going (don't say i didn't tell ya...again):

Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle

November 2, 2009, 9:07 pm by markmattison
Book Review
Pamela Eisenbaum, HarperSanFrancisco, 2009, 336 pp.

The new perspective on Paul which has completely reoriented Pauline studies over the last thirty years continues not only to inspire new theses, but to highlight still unresolved issues as well. Though arguably the majority of New Testament scholars now embrace E.P. Sanders’ principal observation that Palestinian Judaism was not a religion of legalism, nevertheless little consensus has been achieved over the question of Paul’s relationship with Judaism......etc etc....

.....

She goes on to provide a helpful historical analogy to illustrate why “Torah for Jews, Jesus for Gentiles” need not imply two paths to salvation:

The rabbis did not think non-Jews needed to observe all the commandments of the Torah to be redeemed – in fact, they are decidedly not to observe many of them. The rabbis envisioned the Gentiles’ adhering to a small subset of law, known as the Noahide code. Yet the rabbis did not think this counted as two separate ways to salvation. Both groups are supposed to be in concord with the will of God, both are called to obedience, and in their different roles, both are being faithful to the Torah. … that does not mean there are two different systems of redemption (252, emphasis mine).

Nevertheless, what will likely remain challenging for most interpreters of Paul (this reviewer included) is Eisenbaum’s restatement of the position that Paul was addressing a Gentile audience as opposed to a single community made up of both Jews and Gentiles. Whether this reluctance simply illustrates the degree to which the older paradigm remains entrenched perhaps remains to be seen. To that end, this book deserves widespread consideration.
Mark M. Mattison
http://www.thepaulpage.com/paul-was-not-a-christian-the-original-message-of-a-misunderstood-apostle/

SURPRISE! (not)

WHAT RUBBISH!

The Noahide Pledge

From English WikiNoah

Jump to: navigation, search
Maimonides says that "One who accepts these [basic laws] is called: Ger Toshav in every place, and he must be accepted in front of three judges"[1], and in the next verse says "Everyone who accepts the seven commandments and is careful to perform them – this person is of the Chasidei Umos HaOlam, and he has a portion in the world to come. He accepts them and performs them because they were commanded by the Kodosh Baruch Hu, revealed to us by the hand of Moshe Rabbenu that the Bnei Noah were previously commanded in these things. However, if he keeps these [laws] because of intellectual decision – he is not called a Ger Toshav and is not of the Chasidei Umos HaOlam, he is [only] one of their wise men."[2]

The following are various opinions on the appearance of the Noahide in front of three judges, commonly – although usually incorrectly – called the Noahide Oath.

http://wikinoah.org/index.php/The_Noahide_Pledge

~

to ponder:

would you take this Oath?
should anyone?
where does this come from?
where is it headed?

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/27759-noahide-laws.html

 

[distinctiveministry]

he-e-e-e-e-e-y......
is this that New Perspective on Paul thingee again?



course, here's where this came from and where it's going (don't say i didn't tell ya...again):

Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle

November 2, 2009, 9:07 pm by markmattison
Book Review
Pamela Eisenbaum, HarperSanFrancisco, 2009, 336 pp.

The new perspective on Paul which has completely reoriented Pauline studies over the last thirty years continues not only to inspire new theses, but to highlight still unresolved issues as well. Though arguably the majority of New Testament scholars now embrace E.P. Sanders’ principal observation that Palestinian Judaism was not a religion of legalism, nevertheless little consensus has been achieved over the question of Paul’s relationship with Judaism......etc etc....

.....

She goes on to provide a helpful historical analogy to illustrate why “Torah for Jews, Jesus for Gentiles” need not imply two paths to salvation:

The rabbis did not think non-Jews needed to observe all the commandments of the Torah to be redeemed – in fact, they are decidedly not to observe many of them. The rabbis envisioned the Gentiles’ adhering to a small subset of law, known as the Noahide code. Yet the rabbis did not think this counted as two separate ways to salvation. Both groups are supposed to be in concord with the will of God, both are called to obedience, and in their different roles, both are being faithful to the Torah. … that does not mean there are two different systems of redemption (252, emphasis mine).

Nevertheless, what will likely remain challenging for most interpreters of Paul (this reviewer included) is Eisenbaum’s restatement of the position that Paul was addressing a Gentile audience as opposed to a single community made up of both Jews and Gentiles. Whether this reluctance simply illustrates the degree to which the older paradigm remains entrenched perhaps remains to be seen. To that end, this book deserves widespread consideration.
Mark M. Mattison
http://www.thepaulpage.com/paul-was-not-a-christian-the-original-message-of-a-misunderstood-apostle/

SURPRISE! (not)

WHAT RUBBISH!



http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/27759-noahide-laws.html

See, I've actually READ the book, and I can tell you from READING THE BOOK MYSELF that Eisenbaum does not discuss the "Noahide Code". This is an interpolation by the reviewer. She does discuss the "rules" agreed upon by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, which the reviewer apparently has decided to call the "Noahide code". Maybe you should read a book before you offer up someone else's review as accurate, hmm?

 

[distinctiveministry]

why does Paul include himself with the New Covenant Church who inherits New Jerusalem as sons of the freewoman (New Covenant), making it clear he is not in bondage to the Old Covenant (Sinai, present Jerusalem)?

Probably because he was a JEWISH follower of JESUS?

 

[4runner]

Probably because he was a JEWISH follower of JESUS?

But he was writing, and including the Gentiles of Galatia.

 

[distinctiveministry]

But he was writing, and including the Gentiles of Galatia.

Show me a verse where it says that Gentiles are part of the New Covenant.

 

[zone]

See, I've actually READ the book, and I can tell you from READING THE BOOK MYSELF that Eisenbaum does not discuss the "Noahide Code". This is an interpolation by the reviewer. She does discuss the "rules" agreed upon by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, which the reviewer apparently has decided to call the "Noahide code". Maybe you should read a book before you offer up someone else's review as accurate, hmm?

did i make it clear it was a review? ya.

do i care which jew is pushing this junk? no.

your POSTMODERN LIBERAL DECONSTRUCTIONSIM WHICH SAYS GOD HAS NOT FULLY REVEALED HIMSELF IN A WAY MAN CAN KNOW HIM IS RUBBISH....the scriptures.

and your psuedo-intellectualism is dreary.

believe the bible or don't. but don't waste your time to trying to cause doubt in ROCK SOLID BEIEVERS.



Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle

November 2, 2009, 9:07 pm by markmattison
Book Review

Pamela Eisenbaum, HarperSanFrancisco, 2009, 336 pp.

The new perspective on Paul which has completely reoriented Pauline studies over the last thirty years continues not only to inspire new theses, but to highlight still unresolved issues as well. Though arguably the majority of New Testament scholars now embrace E.P. Sanders’ principal observation that Palestinian Judaism was not a religion of legalism, nevertheless little consensus has been achieved over the question of Paul’s relationship with Judaism......etc etc....

.....

She goes on to provide a helpful historical analogy to illustrate why “Torah for Jews, Jesus for Gentiles” need not imply two paths to salvation:

The rabbis did not think non-Jews needed to observe all the commandments of the Torah to be redeemed – in fact, they are decidedly not to observe many of them. The rabbis envisioned the Gentiles’ adhering to a small subset of law, known as the Noahide code. Yet the rabbis did not think this counted as two separate ways to salvation. Both groups are supposed to be in concord with the will of God, both are called to obedience, and in their different roles, both are being faithful to the Torah. … that does not mean there are two different systems of redemption (252, emphasis mine).

Nevertheless, what will likely remain challenging for most interpreters of Paul (this reviewer included) is Eisenbaum’s restatement of the position that Paul was addressing a Gentile audience as opposed to a single community made up of both Jews and Gentiles. Whether this reluctance simply illustrates the degree to which the older paradigm remains entrenched perhaps remains to be seen. To that end, this book deserves widespread consideration.

Mark M. Mattison
http://www.thepaulpage.com/paul-was-not-a-christian-the-original-message-of-a-misunderstood-apostle/

 

[Crazy4GODword]

Jeremiah 31:31-34
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”


Given that Jeremiah states and the author of Hebrews quotes that this covenant is with the houses of Israel and Judah, and that the New Covenant is never applied to Gentiles in any passage of the New Testament (as far as I can think of off the top of my head), is the New Covenant only for Israel? The only passage I can think of right now where Gentiles and the New Covenant have any interaction is 1 Corinthians 11, when Paul instructs Gentiles on the proper observance of the Lord's Supper. Also, Paul is clear in Galatians 3 that Gentiles are reconciled to God on the basis of God's promises to Abraham in Genesis 12 and 22, not through the Mosaic covenant.

But what does Gal 3:29 say? Well when we become Christians we become part of Abrahams seed. We are grafted in in God's family. Wasn't Abraham the father of Issac the father of Jacob (also known as Israel) the father of the twelve tribes of Israel? So we are grafted in as Abraham seed.

Doesn't the Jews come from the 12 tribes? Well what does Romans 2:29 say about a us? We Gentiles are Jews inwardly. Would this mean we partake what God gave Israel if we are Jews as well? Of course for we are God's people too.

 

[4runner]

Show me a verse where it says that Gentiles are part of the New Covenant.

Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Paul wrote this to Gentiles

 

[distinctiveministry]

did i make it clear it was a review? ya. You know what then? I'll just start posting reviews of every book you recommend, whether I have read them or not, and I"ll do my best to make sure that I also don't know the credibility of the reviewer. And when those reviews contain information that doesn't represent your prefered books accurately...OH WELL!

do i care which jew is pushing this junk? no. Exactly my point- SHE NEVER PUSHED IT. NEVER MENTIONED IT. That is the reviewer's interpolation.

your POSTMODERN LIBERAL DECONSTRUCTIONSIM WHICH SAYS GOD HAS NOT FULLY REVEALED HIMSELF IN A WAY MAN CAN KNOW HIM IS RUBBISH....the scriptures. I'm neither post-modern nor liberal, and I believe God has revealed Himself and that we can know Him. Your LIES about me, and your PERSISTANCE in spreading them even when I have repeatedly told you I am not a postmodern liberal, mean that you should earn strong condemnation from everyone who reads your comments.

and your psuedo-intellectualism is dreary. Your insistance that faith be completely blind and anti-intellectual is worrisome.

believe the bible or don't. but don't waste your time to trying to cause doubt in ROCK SOLID BEIEVERS. I do believe the true scriptures. I am not interested in spreading doubt, but rather hope to spread assurance by allowing believers to test their faith and find it true.



Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle

November 2, 2009, 9:07 pm by markmattison
Book Review

Pamela Eisenbaum, HarperSanFrancisco, 2009, 336 pp.

The new perspective on Paul which has completely reoriented Pauline studies over the last thirty years continues not only to inspire new theses, but to highlight still unresolved issues as well. Though arguably the majority of New Testament scholars now embrace E.P. Sanders’ principal observation that Palestinian Judaism was not a religion of legalism, nevertheless little consensus has been achieved over the question of Paul’s relationship with Judaism......etc etc....

.....

She goes on to provide a helpful historical analogy to illustrate why “Torah for Jews, Jesus for Gentiles” need not imply two paths to salvation:

The rabbis did not think non-Jews needed to observe all the commandments of the Torah to be redeemed – in fact, they are decidedly not to observe many of them. The rabbis envisioned the Gentiles’ adhering to a small subset of law, known as the Noahide code. Yet the rabbis did not think this counted as two separate ways to salvation. Both groups are supposed to be in concord with the will of God, both are called to obedience, and in their different roles, both are being faithful to the Torah. … that does not mean there are two different systems of redemption (252, emphasis mine).

Nevertheless, what will likely remain challenging for most interpreters of Paul (this reviewer included) is Eisenbaum’s restatement of the position that Paul was addressing a Gentile audience as opposed to a single community made up of both Jews and Gentiles. Whether this reluctance simply illustrates the degree to which the older paradigm remains entrenched perhaps remains to be seen. To that end, this book deserves widespread consideration.

Mark M. Mattison
http://www.thepaulpage.com/paul-was-not-a-christian-the-original-message-of-a-misunderstood-apostle/

This book review, as I said before, does not accurately represent the books in its reference to Noahide code. What Mr. Mattison calls "Noahide code" is nothing more than the council of Jerusalem's decision as recorded in Acts 15, which is thoroughly biblical.

 

[zone]

This book review, as I said before, does not accurately represent the books in its reference to Noahide code. What Mr. Mattison calls "Noahide code" is nothing more than the council of Jerusalem's decision as recorded in Acts 15, which is thoroughly biblical.

TREASON!

 

[distinctiveministry]

TREASON!

You could highlight the whole sentence but that wouldn't suit your purposes of slandering me. What MR. MATTISON calls "Noahide code" is nothing more than the council of Jerusalem's decision as recorded in Acts 15, which is thoroughly biblical.

 

[distinctiveministry]

believe the bible or don't. but don't waste your time to trying to cause doubt in ROCK SOLID BEIEVERS.

Forgot to point out how you are now judging other people's motives, not just their actions. You are in sin. PERIOD. Slander, judgment, malice.

 

[distinctiveministry]

Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Paul wrote this to Gentiles

And Isaac was not a Jew. Jews are descendants of Jacob, Isaac's son. Of course, you also have 400 years from Isaac until the Mosaic covenant was given, so there were several generations of descendants who were not under the Mosaic covenant, but the Abrahamic promises.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

And Isaac was not a Jew. Jews are descendants of Jacob, Isaac's son. Of course, you also have 400 years from Isaac until the Mosaic covenant was given, so there were several generations of descendants who were not under the Mosaic covenant, but the Abrahamic promises.

Good answer. But he will not listen. The blind seem to remain blind.

 

[4runner]

Good answer. But he will not listen. The blind seem to remain blind.

You are right I will not listen to someone that says gentiles do not participate in the New covenant. Also you are right about the blind remaining blind, but I am praying God will open your eyes.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You are right I will not listen to someone that says gentiles do not participate in the New covenant. Also you are right about the blind remaining blind, but I am praying God will open your eyes.

well I did not know he believed that. that would be wrong.

and open my eyes to what? Your stuff?? God has opened my eyes. and said you were wrong. (on the important things like the gospel anyway)

 

[4runner]

well I did not know he believed that. that would be wrong.

So you didnt even know what was being discussed. you just thought you would pop in and disagree with me on general purpose, and then add a cheap shot. Yeah that sounds like the christian thing to do.........sad, sad