Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 7
The lesson quotes, “God does not seek the relationship of nature, but of righteousness”; in what ways do we still try to build a “relationship of nature” with God (background, tribe, politics, tradition), and what would it look like to pursue the “relationship of righteousness” instead?
Another way to ask: The lesson says God wants a relationship based on righteousness, not just “nature.” How do people still try to be close to God through background, group identity, politics, or tradition, and what would it look like to seek righteousness instead?

Direct Answer A “relationship of nature” is trying to claim closeness to God through ancestry, identity, or outward connection; the transcript treats that as meaningless. A “relationship of righteousness” means seeking belonging through faith and an inward reality—being part of the children of promise who follow Christ.

Support from Transcript:

  • Otteret is quoted: “They are not all Israel… because God does not seek the relationship of nature, but of righteousness.”
  • Bercot repeatedly denies automatic standing: “Just because someone is a fleshly descendant… does not mean… part of the Israel of God.”
  • He ties righteousness to inward reality: Romans 2—Jew “inwardly,” “circumcision… of the heart.”
  • He contrasts “children of the flesh” with “children of the promise,” with the latter “counted as the seed.”
  • He states the present-day application: “only those who follow Christ are the children of promise.”
Discussion Follow-ups What would change in a believer’s priorities if “righteousness” (as Bercot uses it) mattered more than preserving a religious or cultural identity?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10
Back Questions Next