Re: I don’t think there’s a

You have missed my point somewhat if you understand it as an ontological distinction. It is not even, necessarily, a moral distinction.

Good. If in the OT Israel is to be regarded as the "new humanity," it’s a matter of categorization, of God naming them "the people of God" and setting them apart from the other nations. Israel’s separateness is geographical (the land of Israel) and relational (the covenant between God and this people). But it’s not an ontological separation between one kind of material being and another. There’s never any indication that God chose Abraham and his descendants because of some genetic or inherent moral difference they already possessed, nor did God transform the Israelites into some other kind of being (fully human or superhuman) as a result of His choosing them to be His people. The "new creation" of a microcosm composed of God’s people isn’t a new material creation like the one Genesis 1-3 presumably describes, but rather the creation of a new relational category that marks Israelites individually and collectively as "the people" among all other people.

The same presumably can be said for the Church and individual Christians. It is through participation in "the people" that an individual ordinary human is able to put on what Paul calls "the new man." This designation too becomes a relational, categorical distinction rather an ontological (or gnostic) one. In other words, it’s not that the Christian exchanges one kind of biologically human self for a different and better one. Rather, it is through individual participation in what God has categorized as His people that an individual enters into a new and transformational relationship with God.