Interplanner
Well-known member
...That's why the ethnicity doesn't matter. What matters is faith in the Gospel, Gal 3's 2nd paragraph. It was Judaism that later made the issue to be ethnicity.
ECT What ethnicity was Abraham the moment before he believed?
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
He was a descendant of Shem (1 Chr. 1:24–27).
In the Tanakh doesn't he state "...a wandering Aramean was my father...."?
And thou shalt speak and say before the LORD thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous [Deut. 26:5].
"There is something here I would like to have you note. He comes to God first with confession. The Israelite would confess, “A Syrian ready to perish was my father.” Was Abraham an Israelite? No, he actually was not. What about Isaac? Well, he was not either. What about Jacob? Technically, Jacob was not an Israelite. The crowd that went down to Egypt were Syrians. Abraham was no more an Israelite than he was an Ishmaelite—since both peoples descended from him. Abraham was a Syrian as to nationality." McGee, J. V. (1991). Thru the Bible commentary: The Law (Deuteronomy) (electronic ed., Vol. 9, pp. 160–161). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Genealogies are interesting (not mine--I'm descended from hippies :zman: and wolves
"...[T]hese first three progenitors of all modern nations were recognized by their father to have characteristics representing these three emphases. Shem was mainly motivated by spiritual considerations, Japheth by intellectual, and Ham by physical; and the same would be true (in a very general way, of course) of the nations descending from them, by reasons of both genetic inheritance and parental example.
Each was regarded as God’s servant—Shem in spiritual service and Japheth in intellectual service. Ham, responsible for physical service, was thus a “servant of servants,” serving both Shem and Japheth, who were also servants (pp. 239–240)...
...Genesis 9:26
Having predicted Ham’s primary relationship to the cursed ground, along with his material responsibilities to mankind, Noah turned his attention to his next son, Shem. Not only by his action of filial respect, but apparently also by a character of life closely observed by his father, Shem had long indicated his love for the Lord God and his faith in God’s promises.
Noah therefore knew that God’s spiritual blessings would especially rest on Shem, and so exclaimed: “Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem!” Shem knew the Lord personally, in his covenant relationship, and so knew Him by the name Jehovah. This strongly implies, even though it is not explicitly stated, that it was through Shem that God’s greatest blessing for mankind, the promised Seed of the woman, would eventually come into the world. Shem would not be prevented from transmitting God’s spiritual blessings to mankind through future opposition by Canaan and the other sons of Ham, for indeed Canaan would be his “servant,” helping him to accomplish it." Morris, H. M. (1976). The Genesis record: a scientific and devotional commentary on the book of beginnings (p. 242). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
And thou shalt speak and say before the LORD thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous [Deut. 26:5].
"There is something here I would like to have you note. He comes to God first with confession. The Israelite would confess, “A Syrian ready to perish was my father.” Was Abraham an Israelite? No, he actually was not. What about Isaac? Well, he was not either. What about Jacob? Technically, Jacob was not an Israelite. The crowd that went down to Egypt were Syrians. Abraham was no more an Israelite than he was an Ishmaelite—since both peoples descended from him. Abraham was a Syrian as to nationality." McGee, J. V. (1991). Thru the Bible commentary: The Law (Deuteronomy) (electronic ed., Vol. 9, pp. 160–161). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Genealogies are interesting (not mine--I'm descended from hippies :zman: and wolves).
"...[T]hese first three progenitors of all modern nations were recognized by their father to have characteristics representing these three emphases. Shem was mainly motivated by spiritual considerations, Japheth by intellectual, and Ham by physical; and the same would be true (in a very general way, of course) of the nations descending from them, by reasons of both genetic inheritance and parental example.
Each was regarded as God’s servant—Shem in spiritual service and Japheth in intellectual service. Ham, responsible for physical service, was thus a “servant of servants,” serving both Shem and Japheth, who were also servants (pp. 239–240)...
...Genesis 9:26
Having predicted Ham’s primary relationship to the cursed ground, along with his material responsibilities to mankind, Noah turned his attention to his next son, Shem. Not only by his action of filial respect, but apparently also by a character of life closely observed by his father, Shem had long indicated his love for the Lord God and his faith in God’s promises.
Noah therefore knew that God’s spiritual blessings would especially rest on Shem, and so exclaimed: “Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem!” Shem knew the Lord personally, in his covenant relationship, and so knew Him by the name Jehovah. This strongly implies, even though it is not explicitly stated, that it was through Shem that God’s greatest blessing for mankind, the promised Seed of the woman, would eventually come into the world. Shem would not be prevented from transmitting God’s spiritual blessings to mankind through future opposition by Canaan and the other sons of Ham, for indeed Canaan would be his “servant,” helping him to accomplish it." Morris, H. M. (1976). The Genesis record: a scientific and devotional commentary on the book of beginnings (p. 242). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Good post, thanks!
Cross Reference
New member
Then to say Jesus was the "of the tribe of Juda" is meaningless.
I agree with post #4. But its what you and yours do with that, for your failure to properly understand the dynamic actually going on within Galatians, that I do not agree with.
By you and yours, I am referring to the Jew and Gentiles as "spiritual Jew" notion you all turn this from Romans 2, into:
28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29. 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.
Abraham was a Gentile; as is every son of Jacob, in one respect, and yet not in another, as to the first eight days of his life.
Its why you are off on this.
And there is also the issue of Isaac's and Jesus' miracle births to consider.
But Gentiles had always had access available to them; all they had to do was avail themselves of it by entering by faith, into Israel's Covenant with God by circumcision and the Law.
Prior to said conversion, Gentiles were considered a "strangers from the covenants of promise," left where God left the Gentiles in Genesis 11, per Romans 1 - "without God in the world," Eph. 2, and thus, without access to "the gospel of God" concerning the Coming Christ, Gen. 3:15; Rom. 1:1-4.
Now, it is not by Covenant, but that is a different issue altogether, and for the reason that it is a different issue to begin with.
That it is still based on "the gospel of God" - the resurrection of Christ "according to the Scriptures" but this side of the Mystery, given the Mystery's purpose, throws many off.
The issue of what the Mystery preached by the Apostle of the Gentiles is actually about has thrown many off.
You bet. A Leftist will be around shortly to accuse me of microaggression. :sozo2:
"In general, however, it has been true throughout history that the Semites have been dominated by religious motivations centered in monotheism (the Jews, the Moslems, the Zoroastrians, etc.). The Japhethites (especially the Greeks, Romans, and later the other Europeans and the Americans) have stressed science and philosophy in their development. The Hamites (Egyptians, Phoenicians, Sumerians, Orientals, Africans, etc.) have been the great pioneers that opened up the world to settlement, to cultivation, and to technology.
Each stream of nations has influenced the others, of course, and there has been much mixing of peoples from different tribes and nations; so there may well be many apparent exceptions to the general trends. But it is possible to discern these general trends, and they do follow the prophetic pattern outlined thousands of years ago by father Noah. The Semites have been predominant in theology, the Japhethites in science and philosophy, the Hamites in technology.
Note that these three streams of nations are not three “races.” Though some have thought of the Semites, Japhethites, and Hamites as three races (say, the dusky, the white, and the black races—or the Mongoloid, Caucasian, and Negroid), this is not what the Bible teaches, nor is it what modern anthropology and human genetics teach. There are dusky and black people found among all three groups of nations. The Bible does not use the word “race” nor does it acknowledge such a concept. The modern concept of “race” is based on evolutionary thinking. To the evolutionist, a race is a subspecies in the process of evolving into a new species, and this idea is the basis of modern racism. The actual original descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth are identified in Genesis 10..." Morris, H. M. (1976). The Genesis record: a scientific and devotional commentary on the book of beginnings (pp. 243–244). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Interplanner
Well-known member
CrossR,
it not meaningful for the theological (redemption) questions of Gal 3, right. It is meaningful for the lineage-tracking questions of Mt 1 and Lk 3, because that puts Jesus in time and space, which is a necessary feature.
But Rom 3 and 9-11 are full of distancing themselves from the ethnos automatically meaning that they are with God or have faith or following God. The sad thing Paul says is that it almost appears as though the word of God has failed.
it not meaningful for the theological (redemption) questions of Gal 3, right. It is meaningful for the lineage-tracking questions of Mt 1 and Lk 3, because that puts Jesus in time and space, which is a necessary feature.
But Rom 3 and 9-11 are full of distancing themselves from the ethnos automatically meaning that they are with God or have faith or following God. The sad thing Paul says is that it almost appears as though the word of God has failed.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Danoh,
the reason anyone is different in God's view is faith.
I don't think you are very familiar with the mystery concepts. The OT was full of visions of the nations coming to join Israel somehow, but Eph 3:5-6 says it was through the Gospel, not through the Law as Judaism expected. The Law is one of the 3 parts of the trinity as far as they are concerned, so everything significant must channel through it. Even today there are conservative rabbis who say that the prophet visions are not divine. They sense that the fulfillment of the vision comes 'apart from the law.'
btw, Isaac's birth is meant to picture all those not born of flesh, because the way Gal 4 describes it, there is no proof that he was conceived through sex. His conception may have been divine just like Mary (Jesus) and Elizabeth (John). Cp the Luke account and the Sarah account: none of the usual OT expressions for sexual activity are there.
Both Abraham's and Sarah's capabilities were said to be dead, Rom 4.
But that is meant to picture those who have faith, Rom 4 with gal 4. It does not meant that each believer was a supernatural biological conception; it could not. It pictures that each of them are born of God.
the reason anyone is different in God's view is faith.
I don't think you are very familiar with the mystery concepts. The OT was full of visions of the nations coming to join Israel somehow, but Eph 3:5-6 says it was through the Gospel, not through the Law as Judaism expected. The Law is one of the 3 parts of the trinity as far as they are concerned, so everything significant must channel through it. Even today there are conservative rabbis who say that the prophet visions are not divine. They sense that the fulfillment of the vision comes 'apart from the law.'
btw, Isaac's birth is meant to picture all those not born of flesh, because the way Gal 4 describes it, there is no proof that he was conceived through sex. His conception may have been divine just like Mary (Jesus) and Elizabeth (John). Cp the Luke account and the Sarah account: none of the usual OT expressions for sexual activity are there.
Both Abraham's and Sarah's capabilities were said to be dead, Rom 4.
But that is meant to picture those who have faith, Rom 4 with gal 4. It does not meant that each believer was a supernatural biological conception; it could not. It pictures that each of them are born of God.