Who is Israel? And what is God's plan for the Jewish people?

[Anne2]

2 minutes ago, Alive said:

@Anne

I am not sue what you mean. Maybe I can say a couple things to help us understand each other.

Paul understood and spoke about him being a Jew after the flesh and the Jews were also referred to as "the circumcision".

Paul made distinctions between being an Israelite after the flesh and 'true' Israel.

He also talked about the fact that in Christ there is neither jew, greek, etc. The partition had been broken down by and in Christ.

He also talked about a different sort of circumcision.

So what are your talking about.

I am simply trying understand the terms as they are being used. To understand each other so, I can understand what George is saying about it. Me, I understood it to mean circumcision in the flesh. But maybe not. But I am trying to understand usage here to understand each other first.

There is this.

Php 3:5  Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

[Alive]

Just now, Anne2 said:

I am simply trying understand the terms as they are being used. To understand each other so, I can understand what George is saying about it. Me, I understood it to mean circumcision in the flesh. But maybe not. But I am trying to understand usage here to understand each other first.

There is this.

Php 3:5  Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

This is simply Paul telling them he was a Jew by his first birth as a means of leverage against those who would use fleshly circumcision as a way to make themselves special and come into the churches stirring up trouble. The Judaizers followed him around resisting the true gospel.

Kinda like this: hey, y'all think you are special, well regarding that, I was one of the best--but now, it means nothing.

:-)

[Anne2]

7 minutes ago, Alive said:

This is simply Paul telling them he was a Jew by his first birth as a means of leverage against those who would use fleshly circumcision as a way to make themselves special and come into the churches stirring up trouble. The Judaizers followed him around resisting the true gospel.

Kinda like this: hey, y'all think you are special, well regarding that, I was one of the best--but now, it means nothing.

:-)

Ok. But as stock from Israel it was based upon circumcision.  But yeah, circumcision in the flesh or uncircumcision in the flesh makes no difference now. Circumcision of the heart is what counts.

[Anne2]

11 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

Ok. But as stock from Israel it was based upon circumcision.  But yeah, circumcision in the flesh or uncircumcision in the flesh makes no difference now. Circumcision of the heart is what counts.

Maybe what I need to ask is.

Which means bloodline in the above verse Stock or Hebrew. 

[Alive]

2 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

Maybe what I need to ask is.

Which means bloodline in the above verse Stock or Hebrew. 

No. Bloodline is simply the bloodline as humans. Circumcision was a surgical act that signified a couple things. One is it made a distinction between God's chosen and the rest of the world and an act of obedience as a coveneant Jew. It was also a type and shadow of a spiritual circumcision promised in the future.

My personal and albeit additional understanding is it represented a cutting away of 'natural' 'fleshly' strength of man, that leads to a trust in God rather than our own strength.

Think of it both in the result of Jacob wrestling with the Lord. He came away with a limp that fundamentally changed him. That is a great point for teaching--and as well our ongoing process of sanctification. The Lord works in us. He touches a spot or place or thinking in us---causing a wounding of sorts in our flesh, which results in a trust, reliance and knowledge of God--rather thann that 'natural' strength we had long relied on.

[Anne2]

4 minutes ago, Alive said:

No. Bloodline is simply the bloodline as humans. Circumcision was a surgical act that signified a couple things. One is it made a distinction between God's chosen and the rest of the world and an act of obedience as a coveneant Jew. It was also a type and shadow of a spiritual circumcision promised in the future.

 Distinquishes a covenant Jew and the rest of the world.

This says a Jew is those circumcised, and those not circumcised. distinguishes a Jew from Gentile.  Jew here is also synonymous to an Israelite. A non Jew becomes a Jew in  circumcision, an Israelite, like one born in the land.

As a type and shadow of a spiritual Jew/ spiritual Israel.

But Jew being used as simply a race apart from this thing then none of that applies in Paul's use. 

There is no context to two Israel's

 

  

[Alive]

5 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

 Distinquishes a covenant Jew and the rest of the world.

This says a Jew is those circumcised, and those not circumcised. distinguishes a Jew from Gentile.  Jew here is also synonymous to an Israelite. A non Jew becomes a Jew in  circumcision, an Israelite, like one born in the land.

As a type and shadow of a spiritual Jew/ spiritual Israel.

But Jew being used as simply a race apart from this thing then none of that applies in Paul's use. 

There is no context to two Israel's.

Circumcision didn't make a Jew a Jew--it made him an obedient Jew--or rather the community obedient.

Yes it certainly applies in Paul's use of the term.

What do you mean by "no context to two Israels"?

 

  

Once again, I don't know what you are trying to get at.

[Anne2]

Just now, Alive said:

Once again, I don't know what you are trying to get at.

If Paul speaking of kinsman in flesh has no connection to circumcision, then none of those spiritual types apply in that particular verse.

 

[Alive]

4 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

If Paul speaking of kinsman in flesh has no connection to circumcision, then none of those spiritual types apply in that particular verse.

 

Paul was speaking of kinsman after the flesh and circumcision was intrinsic to his point.

The spiritual types are what they are....the fleshly circumcision was pointing to the true circumcision of the heart in Christ.

Perhaps you are thinking too much about this.

This is the context: Jews were stirring up trouble trying to bring the saints under the burden of the law. Paul was always comparing the old to the new. Juxtaposing the old to the better way, that the old pointed to. Many Jews made their physical circum. out to be proof of their superior Godliness.

Connect Paul in Romans below....

Rom. 2:25 (NAS20S)   For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a violator of the Law, your circumcision has turned into uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

too Phil.

 

Phil. 3:2 (NAS20S)   Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; ³ for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and take pride in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh, ⁴ although I myself could boast as having confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he is confident in the flesh, I have more reason: ⁵ circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; ⁶ as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Phil. 3:7 (NAS20S)   But whatever things were gain to me, these things I have counted as loss because of Christ. ⁸ More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of   knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them mere rubbish, so that I may gain Christ, ⁹ and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, ¹⁰ that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and   the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;

[Anne2]

28 minutes ago, Alive said:

Paul was speaking of kinsman after the flesh and circumcision was intrinsic to his point.

That was my point in asking George the question about circumcision. To which you replied

"No. Bloodline is simply the bloodline as humans."  Doing so in agreement with George. Then you went on to distinguish between the two.

Either circumcision is always inclusive, or it isn't. I am fine with it either way as long aligns with scripture. Then you simply get a better understanding.

As for me, for now, Scripture says it is always inclusive. Not over thinking just looking at this scripture vs 

"No. Bloodline is simply the bloodline as humans." 

 Ge 17:14  And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Anne2