ECT The 'sperma' not 'tekna' are Abraham's seed

[Interplanner]

In Rom 9:8, Paul explains that the Abraham's descendants (NIV offspring) are those who believe the promise and the object of belief is Christ, because Christ was the Seed. The term for that group is 'sperma'. Those born the natural way are 'sarkos.' The 'sperma' can be from any nation and are blessed along with Abraham.

The descendants gain that descendant status by being counted or considered such. The dynamic verb 'logizo' is used in v8, which is also used when Abraham considered that God could rejuvenate his system and Sarah's and when we receive Christ's righteousness. All these instances are 'counted' as such, even though they were in fact not. God "calls the things that are not as though they were." 4:17

 

[Interplanner]

Sorry about the title! It should have been the 'sperma' not 'sarkos' are the Seed. The expression was 'sarkos tauta tekna' and I didn't back up far enough.

 

[Psalmist]

I guess just "Abraham's Seed" just wouldn't do.

 

[OCTOBER23]

JESUS IS THE SEED

NOW THE SEED IS IN US

CAUSING A NEW BIRTH OF A NEW CREATURE

WE WILL BE " THE LIVING DEAD. "

Think about it .

 

[Interplanner]

Psalmist,
'children' (tekna) is the neutral term in Rom 9:8. They are either 'sperma' (seed) or 'sarka' (flesh). The former are those who have faith in Christ. 'Sarka' are born and continue the ordinary way.

 

[Interplanner]

The correct title of this thread should be:

The 'sperma' not the 'sarka' are the true children.

Sorry!

 

[kayaker]

In Rom 9:8, Paul explains that the Abraham's descendants (NIV offspring) are those who believe the promise and the object of belief is Christ, because Christ was the Seed. The term for that group is 'sperma'. Those born the natural way are 'sarkos.' The 'sperma' can be from any nation and are blessed along with Abraham.

The descendants gain that descendant status by being counted or considered such. The dynamic verb 'logizo' is used in v8, which is also used when Abraham considered that God could rejuvenate his system and Sarah's and when we receive Christ's righteousness. All these instances are 'counted' as such, even though they were in fact not. God "calls the things that are not as though they were." 4:17

I do appreciate your delineation, Interplanner. I’m not sure how this fits with your verbal discernment…

Please consider:

Romans 9:6-9, KJV “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8) 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. 9) For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.”​

It’s hard to imagine such discussion without considering all of Abraham’s progeny via Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah (and concubines) after Sarah died (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4). The million-dollar question is: Who was Paul specifically referring to in Romans 9:8 KJV? I use the KJV since it maintains the finer distinction not found in many translations discerning “children” from “seed”.

Paul stated in Galatians 4:22 KJV that Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Interestingly, Paul made no mention of Abraham’s progeny via Keturah. That might sound like a small matter, but Paul was explicitly correct that Moses declared the progeny of Abraham via Keturah were “the children of Keturah” (Genesis 25:4 KJV). In fact, where were those ‘sons’ of Keturah during Abraham’s funeral, right (Genesis 25:9 KJV)? No love lost, there… Abraham was buried by his two sons: Isaac and Ishmael. Consequently, one might readily conclude Abraham’s progeny via Keturah were Abraham’s “seed,” they just weren’t Abraham’s “children.”

In fact, those who instigated Jesus’ crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV) were “Abraham’s seed” by their own admission (John 8:33 KJV). On the flip side of that coin, those instigators were never in bondage in Egypt, although present with the Israelites in Egypt. Therefore, Jesus’ principal detractors were NOT authentic Israelite Jews (Romans 2:9, 3:9)! And, this is the subtle point Paul was making in Romans 9:6 KJV, Romans 9:7 KJV, and Romans 9:8 KJV. Furthermore, Jesus affirmed those non-Israelites plotting His crucifixion were “Abraham’s seed” in John 8:37 KJV. And, Jesus went further to say those detractors were NOT “Abraham’s children” in John 8:39 KJV keeping in step with Moses in Genesis 25:4 KJV. Even John the Baptist knew who they were in Luke 3:2 KJV, Luke 3:7 KJV, Luke 3:8 KJV, Luke 3:9 KJV.

Those who instigated Jesus’ crucifixion were “Abraham’s seed” (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, Romans 9:7 KJV); they just weren’t ancestrally authentic Israelites (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, Romans 9:6 KJV). Those principal detractors who instigated Jesus’ crucifixion were descendants of Abraham via Judah (great-grandson of Abraham) and ALSO descendants of Abraham via Judah’s Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3). Judah’s Canaanitess wife was the daughter of the Canaanite, Shuah (Genesis 38:2 KJV). Checking the records closely, Judah’s Canaanite father-in-law Shuah, was the ‘son-child’ of Keturah, wife of Abraham (v. 2 of Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4). Judah’s Canaanite father-in-law Shuah was NOT a ‘son-child’ of Abraham (Romans 9:6 KJV, Romans 9:7 KJV; John 8:39 KJV).

This might seem like a relative small matter until one considers Isaiah 65:9 KJV. The bottom line in those days: Was Judah’s Canaanitess wife to be the ancestress to Messiah? Or, was Judah’s progeny via his Israelite Priestess daughter-in-law Tamar to be ancestress to Messiah (Leviticus 21:9 KJV, Genesis 38:24 KJV)? We know Jesus was a descendant of Pharez, eldest twin son of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38:29 KJV; Matthew 1:1 KJV, Matthew 1:2 KJV, Matthew 1:3 KJV; Luke 3:31, 32, 33). Those who instigated Jesus’ crucifixion were descendants of Judah and his Canaanitess wife, btw. Jesus’ mere existence both ‘legitimized’ Judah’s descendants via his daughter-in-law Tamar, and Jesus’ existence also ‘consummated’ Judah’s relationship with Tamar, sanctioned by Almighty God (Genesis 38:7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 26). God wrote the Law, and ONLY God could change it. Judah’s relationship with Tamar was contrary to Leviticus 18:15 KJV, Leviticus 20:12 KJV, Leviticus 21:7 KJV, Leviticus 21:9 KJV, Leviticus 21:13 KJV, Leviticus 21:14 KJV… So, you might have a broader idea what those detractors meant in John 8:41 KJV.

Romans 9:8 KJV has vastly greater meaning than meets the eye, Interplanner!

kayaker

 

[Interplanner]

I know he delved into certain things in that paragraph in 9, but I'm not going to cloud the picture with a division within the crowd that wanted his death. I did just check that paragraph and it only refers to various fathers, does not use various terms for children, and also uses a couple terms for producing children. Not quite a good verbal comparison.

If you take ch 9 with 4 and Gal 3, you don't need to get too bogged down in what you did. It has more today with people at his time having faith or not. There may have been talk all over Jerusalem that staged this.

The 'sarkos'-borns are not necessarily Abraham's 'tekna.' They have to have faith. The 'sperma'-born means, like the picture of Isaac, they exist apart from human effort but clearly God's effort and have faith in the promise. Don't forget that in Gal 4 the promise means nothing other than justification through Christ. It doesn't refer to land, city, temple, or Judaism's worship equipment.

 

[kayaker]

I know he delved into certain things in that paragraph in 9, but I'm not going to cloud the picture with a division within the crowd that wanted his death. I did just check that paragraph and it only refers to various fathers, does not use various terms for children, and also uses a couple terms for producing children. Not quite a good verbal comparison.

If you take ch 9 with 4 and Gal 3, you don't need to get too bogged down in what you did. It has more today with people at his time having faith or not. There may have been talk all over Jerusalem that staged this.

The 'sarkos'-borns are not necessarily Abraham's 'tekna.' They have to have faith. The 'sperma'-born means, like the picture of Isaac, they exist apart from human effort but clearly God's effort and have faith in the promise. Don't forget that in Gal 4 the promise means nothing other than justification through Christ. It doesn't refer to land, city, temple, or Judaism's worship equipment.

Those descendants of Abraham via Judah and his Canaanite wife refused to accept Jesus on legal grounds. Judah's relationship with his daughter-in-law Tamar was contrary Leviticus 18:15 KJV, Leviticus 20:12 KJV, Leviticus 21:7 KJV, Leviticus 21:9 KJV, Leviticus 21:13 KJV, Leviticus 21:14 KJV as noted in John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19 KJV, and John 8:41 KJV. So... sure, Interplanner. Faith was the major component being Jesus was the "stumbling stone" to the law (Romans 9:31 KJV, Romans 9:32 KJV). And, those laws in Leviticus were how those non-Israelite detractors held the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel' in spiritual 'captivity' in Jesus' day. Those 'lost sheep' were predominately the descendants of Judah and Tamar who had no 'legitimate' patriarch among the twelve sons of Jacob-Israel (Genesis 38:26 KJV). Those Pharzites and Zarhites (Genesis 38:29 KJV, Genesis 38:30 KJV, Numbers 26:20 KJV) were essentially 'fatherless' according to the law. Jesus was sent to the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel,' and that didn't include Judah's Canaanite/Shelanite descendants. Jesus' existence 'freed' the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the Pharzites and Zarhites, from the bondage of the law. And I propose that was a component of the 'freedom' Jesus spoke in John 8:32 KJV.

Indeed, Interplanner... it was through faith in Jesus the lost sheep of the house of Israel became 'reclaimed' as authentic descendants of Abraham via Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar. And, I'll not get into specifics of how that impacted the 'illegitimacy' of Judah's Canaanite/Shelanite descendants conceived contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3 affirmed by Ezra 9:1, 2 perceived as a "great trespass" some 1,400 years later.

So, there's no bogging down to it, actually. Paul made it clear that through faith in Jesus there are no ancestral boundaries to become heirs according to the promise. I consider myself adopted, and my adoption papers are signed in Jesus' authentic Israelite/Pharzite blood.

kayaker

 

[Interplanner]

Kayaker,
it is all apart from human descendancy anyway! Jn 1:13.

 

[kayaker]

Kayaker,
it is all apart from human descendancy anyway! Jn 1:13.

I suggest taking this verse in a little more context, Interplanner:

John 1:11-13, KJV "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."​

Jesus "came unto his own..." Who were His own, Interplanner? Most specifically, His own were the lost sheep of the house of Israel: Judah's fatherless descendants via Tamar, the Pharzites and Zarhites (Genesis 38:29, 30). Jesus was a Pharzite Jew. Why did 'his own receive him not'? They had no faith. Why did they have no faith? Those Pharzites and Zarhites were held captive to those Laws of Leviticus that denounced their legitimacy being descendants of Tamar, who played the harlot. Who else but the descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife would hold the law over their heads?

Just like Paul implied in Romans 9:8 KJV... the descendants of Abraham via Keturah were children of the flesh. Judah's Canaanite wife, granddaughter of Keturah, was a child of the flesh. Their Shelanite descendants were children of the flesh, and they were the non-Israelites who instigated Jesus crucifixion. Abraham's "seed" via Keturah were not Abraham's "children" in John 8:39 KJV or in Genesis 25:4 KJV.

On the other hand, those lost sheep of the house of Israel who "received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John 1:12 KJV). How did they become sons of God? Through faith in Jesus, their own kin, those Pharzite and Zarhite descendants of Judah and Tamar became 'legitimized'. Please reconsider John 8:30 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV. Wasn't Adam a son of God (Luke 3:38 KJV)? Weren't all those in that lineage between God and Jesus, sons of God (Luke 3:23-38 KJV)? Weren't Judah' descendants via Pharez considered "The sons of Judah..." in 1Chronicles 4:1 KJV? So, sure... through faith in Jesus, those fatherless lost sheep descendants of Judah and Tamar were reclaimed as sons of God.

How did His own find faith? They believed on the name of Jesus: His Pharzite ancestry, descendants of Judah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV). They were born of the will of God (John 1:13 KJV). Abraham's seed via Keturah were NOT born of the will of God (Romans 9:6, 7, 8). Keturah's son Shuah (Genesis 25:2 KJV) was a Canaanite (Genesis 38:2 KJV). His daughter, Judah's wife, was a Canaanitess (1Chronicles 2:3 KJV). Therefore, Abraham's wife Keturah was a Canaanite and their progeny were called "the children of Keturah", and not Abraham (Genesis 25:4 KJV). Judah's and his Canaanitess wife's progeny were children of the flesh (Romans 9:6, 7, 8). They were children of the flesh born contrary to the will of God found in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3 corroborated by Ezra 9:1, 2, 8.

Judah's and his daughter-in-law Tamar's descendants, the Pharzites and Zarhites, were children of the promise. And, that's who Jesus was sent primarily to, His own, descendants of Judah (and Tamar), prophesied progenitor of Messiah in Isaiah 65:9 KJV.

So, it's more than as you suggest, Interplanner: "it is all apart from human descendancy anyway!" Faith was utterly based on the name, the ancestry of Jesus. What's in His name besides five letters, anyway? Ask John in 1John 4:1 KJV, 1John 4:2 KJV. There are those on TOL who will suggest Jesus could just as easily have been a descendant of any ole virgin, even a Canaanite virgin, even a virgin Canaanite descendant of Judah and his Canaanite wife. Do you agree with that? So, sure, Interplanner... faith has an ancestral component, and that ancestral component focuses on Jesus, a Pharzite Jew.

kayaker

 

[Interplanner]

It has an ancestral component so that when it came time to shift the promises to David over to Messiah, it made sense to those in Israel, ACts 13 on isaiah 55. He was the new David. But he was not going to be and will not be another theocratic David in a certain geography. All that is in the past covenant.

Your treatment of Jn 1 is so many miles from Rom 9:8 where this started that I can't say it helps.

In both Rom 9 and Gal 4, descendancy is broken because the expressions do not mean that sexual intercourse produced Isaac. Maybe that will help you see what it is saying. This repeats with Mary and with Elizabeth (John).

The reality of procreation apart from sexual activity provides a picture of all Christian believers. Not that they come into biological existence that way, but that they are born from above.

 

[Interplanner]

btw, I was on a mission trip in Moldova and went to that tiny country's national museum. It has some middle eastern roots being close to Turkey. One of the fascinating items was an early Christian era document or inscription that implied that Isaac was born directly by God's action in Sarah (ie not ordinary sexual contact).

 

[kayaker]

It has an ancestral component so that when it came time to shift the promises to David over to Messiah, it made sense to those in Israel, ACts 13 on isaiah 55. He was the new David. But he was not going to be and will not be another theocratic David in a certain geography. All that is in the past covenant.

Your treatment of Jn 1 is so many miles from Rom 9:8 where this started that I can't say it helps.

In both Rom 9 and Gal 4, descendancy is broken because the expressions do not mean that sexual intercourse produced Isaac. Maybe that will help you see what it is saying. This repeats with Mary and with Elizabeth (John).

The reality of procreation apart from sexual activity provides a picture of all Christian believers. Not that they come into biological existence that way, but that they are born from above.

I think you bring up a good point here, Interplanner. And, I certainly appreciate your recognition Elizabeth was entertained by Gabriel inspiring the conception of John the Baptist. Likewise, Mary was entertained by Gabriel. Did Abraham have sex with Sarah? Abraham was most certainly fertile considering Keturah and her children. I suggest Sarah's conception was divinely inspired, but not immaculate as was Mary's. John the Baptist's conception was divinely inspired, but not immaculate.

Look at the conception of Jacob in Genesis 25:20 KJV. Do you think Jacob was immaculately conceived? Consider Judah's conception in Genesis 29:30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, KJV. Do you think all those sons of Jacob were immaculately conceived, Judah included? Didn't Jacob 'go in unto Rachel' in Genesis 29:30 KJV... but, you're suggesting sexual intercourse had nothing to do Isaac's and John the Baptist's conceptions. Were they immaculately conceived, or miraculously conceived?

So... sure, John 1:11, 12, 13 zooms in on Romans 9:6, 7, 8. God intervened, clearly. Those conceptions were indeed the will of God, and not of flesh and blood. God opened those wombs and inspired those conceptions, but those were not immaculate conceptions as was Mary's. God set the stage for Jesus' immaculate conception since He could form Adam from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7 KJV), and open the barren wombs of Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Elizabeth. Mary was obviously not barren, she had more sons after Jesus. But, they were neither miraculous, nor immaculate conceptions.

Are you suggesting Isaac, Jacob, and Judah were immaculate conceptions, then? Then, sexual intercourse was involved. But, that did not preclude their miraculous conceptions being the will of God as mentioned in John 1 followed up by Paul in Romans 9.

But, the fact remains... you've not commented on who those conceived of the flesh were who Paul alluded to in Romans 9. I've offered they were the 'born of the flesh' descendants of Abraham via Keturah through Judah and his Canaanitess wife, contrary to the will of God found in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, and Ezra 9:1, 2, 9. Furthermore, those uninspired flesh descendants instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV). Those uninspired flesh descendants of Abraham were NOT Israelites. For aforementioned reasons then, those Israelites WERE conceived via the will of God. Those who instigated Jesus' crucifixion were conceived via the flesh contrary to the will of God as mentioned in Deuteronomy and Ezra.

kayaker

 

[kayaker]

btw, I was on a mission trip in Moldova and went to that tiny country's national museum. It has some middle eastern roots being close to Turkey. One of the fascinating items was an early Christian era document or inscription that implied that Isaac was born directly by God's action in Sarah (ie not ordinary sexual contact).

I appreciate the implication, Interplanner. So, do you subscribe to the notion Isaac was immaculately conceived, then? Do you think Abel was immaculately conceived? Seth? Jesus' ancestress Tamar was most definitely not a virgin. She played the harlot, in fact. So, I see no significance to assume there were any immaculate conceptions other than Mary's. I most certainly agree there were divinely inspired conceptions as in miraculous conceptions. But, the notion of prior immaculate conceptions dilutes the significance of Mary's. None of the other females were virgins, btw. That seems like a clue along those lines.

kayaker

 

[Cross Reference]

In Rom 9:8, Paul explains that the Abraham's descendants (NIV offspring) are those who believe the promise and the object of belief is Christ, because Christ was the Seed. The term for that group is 'sperma'. Those born the natural way are 'sarkos.' The 'sperma' can be from any nation and are blessed along with Abraham.

The descendants gain that descendant status by being counted or considered such. The dynamic verb 'logizo' is used in v8, which is also used when Abraham considered that God could rejuvenate his system and Sarah's and when we receive Christ's righteousness. All these instances are 'counted' as such, even though they were in fact not. God "calls the things that are not as though they were." 4:17

Then why not allow all that to affect your preterist thinking re Matt 24 et al that doesn't add up?

 

[Interplanner]

What doesn't add up. A is about 1st century Judea. B is about the 2nd coming. It was said to be possible right after A but also that a delay was allowed. There was. That adds to me.

 

[Tambora]

Psalmist,
'children' (tekna) is the neutral term in Rom 9:8. They are either 'sperma' (seed) or 'sarka' (flesh). The former are those who have faith in Christ. 'Sarka' are born and continue the ordinary way.

Matthew 22 KJV
(25) Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue (sperma), left his wife unto his brother:


2 Corinthians 11 KJV
(22) Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed (sperma) of Abraham? so am I.


Romans 4 KJV
(16) Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed (sperma); not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

 

[Interplanner]

Right 4:16 had already established that 'sperma' was transcultural. it was not limited to any race, descendancy, culture, law, ethnos, gender. Rom 9 continues.

A usage over in Matt etc for other purposes is not going to be the same thing when Paul is working on three distinctions.

 

[Interplanner]

Sorry again about the title. It should have been:

Abraham's 'sperma' not 'sarkos' are the true children.