Gods Chosen People?

[Pwrlftr]

Didn’t the Jews dissapoint him over and over again before the contract was even offered? He knew their number. Just like the mortgage companies who offered loans to people that they knew could not pay.

You could argue that God he would have known what the final outcome is anyway.

The Abrahamic covenant is eteranal ( as best as I understand it ) but the Mosaic or Old Covenant was not and no longer has any validity as a legal system. The precepts of morality and worship found in the Old Covenant may carry over but as a legal system, the Old Covenat has been set aside.

The New Testament makes it clear that the Old Covenant is set aside and replaced with a new and better covenant, i.e. the New Covenant. A large portion of the book of Hebrews discusses this.

The Jews are still invited in but OT Judaism ended with the destruction of the temple.

 

[diggerdomer]

I suppose what I was trying to ask, and doing a poor job of it, is do you believe that Old Covenant (the Mosaic Covenant) still has any legal validity for the Jews or anyone else for that matter?

Of course it does for the Jews.

 

[diggerdomer]

Okay, call it a contract.

No, let’s keep calling it a covenant as the Bible does.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Of course it does for the Jews.

I couldn’t disagree more. Before we begin we should be clear as to what we mean by the Old Covenant. The phrase “Old Covenant” appears only once in the NT:

**2 Cor. 3:14 - But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. **

In context, we find that Paul refers to the Mosaic Coveant as the Old Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was given to Moses at Sinai.

Can you provide some basis (scripture, council documents, etc.) for your belief that the Old Covenant which is the Mosaic Covenant, not the Abrahamic Covenant or Davidic Covenant, is still valid today for the Jews?

 

[Pwrlftr]

No, let’s keep calling it a covenant as the Bible does.

Given the context of my conversation with Strawberry Jam, precisely what would be the difference between a covenant and a contract?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Given the context of my conversation with Strawberry Jam, precisely what would be the difference between a covenant and a contract?

I agree. I see no difference here based on the narrative.

 

[diggerdomer]

I couldn’t disagree more. Before we begin we should be clear as to what we mean by the Old Covenant. The phrase “Old Covenant” appears only once in the NT:

**2 Cor. 3:14 - But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. **

In context, we find that Paul refers to the Mosaic Coveant as the Old Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was given to Moses at Sinai.

Can you provide some basis (scripture, council documents, etc.) for your belief that the Old Covenant which is the Mosaic Covenant, not the Abrahamic Covenant or Davidic Covenant, is still valid today for the Jews?

My point was that all of the Old Testament (as Christians tend to call it) is applicable to the Jews.

Do you know parts of the Christian “Old Testament” (aka Hebrew Scripture) that Jews reject?

While Paul may have (I don’t know, do you?) distinguished between the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants, as you suggest, my simple point was I don’t know that Jews do. They adhere to all the Christian Old Testament. Or not?

 

[diggerdomer]

Given the context of my conversation with Strawberry Jam, precisely what would be the difference between a covenant and a contract?

Great question!

My thoughts, off the top of my head, contracts are mutually binding, i.e. both parties have equal rights, obligations, etc.

God’s use of covenant, though, is different than a simple (humanly understood) “contract.”

God, through God’s covenant, promised to always be faithful, loving, etc., regardless of our (human) response. In other words, no matter what we do, God will not break God’s covenant.

Contracts, on the other hand, again as I in my simple way understand such as different from covenant, can be abrogated by EITHER party.

God will not act contrary to God’s promises, no matter what we do. God’s covenants with humans are not “contracts” between two equal parties. God’s covenant is a promise, a pledge, a revelation, of God’s intent and desire for humanity. God will not fail God’s promises. No matter our response. This is imho different from a “contract.”

 

[MIDGIE]

If the Jews were no longer the chosen people of your God, then he would have broken his word, by breaking his covenant. Since you agree he did not break a covenant, looks like the OP has his answer.

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 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." - Romans 2:28-29

"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are NOT the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." - Romans 9:6-8

"And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." ~ Galations 3:29