Ship of Fools: Chosen people - Tangent from a Keryg thread

Thread: Chosen people - Tangent from a Keryg thread Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030096

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Is there anyone else who finds this concept problematic? The idea that in the OT the Jews were special to God, that he cared about them in a way he didn't about gentiles?

It's there in the OT Law - you can't charge other Jews interest, but gentiles - yeah, they don't get protection from usury.

And it still seems to exist in some people's theology - Jews can get "in" through observance of the Torah, but everyone else has to accept Jesus or they're eternal toast.

It looks like racism to me, treating a certain group differently because of their ethnic origin.

Or am I start staring bonkers?

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

Well, of course, the Christian take on this --- and particularly the Calvinist take --- is that God chose the Jews because of his desire to redeem humankind from the curse of sin. The whole human race stands condemned, but out of sheer mercy, God has chosen to save some (the Jews, under the Old Covenant, and those whom he has chosen in Christ, under the New).

This, of course, begs the question, "Then why doesn't God save everybody?"

I don't have an answer for that one --- which is why I, with Origen, William Barclay and others, tend to side with old-fashioned Restorationist Universalism.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
Well, of course, the Christian take on this --- and particularly the Calvinist take --- is that God chose the Jews because of his desire to redeem humankind from the curse of sin. The whole human race stands condemned, but out of sheer mercy, God has chosen to save some (the Jews, under the Old Covenant, and those whom he has chosen in Christ, under the New).

This, of course, begs the question, "Then why doesn't God save everybody?"

It does seem to me there is a well-established variation on this—that God chose Israel under the Old Covenant and the Church under the New Covenant, as a means or tool for the redemption of all humanity. Under this understanding, Israel and the Church are chosen for the purpose of being a light to the nations.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Is not the concept of Israel being a chosen nation in the sense of being prejudicially favoured by God challenged by the parabolic book of Jonah, which ends with the question: "How much more, then, should I have pity on Nineveh, that great city. After all it has more than 120,000 innocent children in it, as well as many animals?"

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

It's easier to deal with if you (just) accept that the OT is a biased history of Israel. And that's it.

K.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
Well, of course, the Christian take on this --- and particularly the Calvinist take --- is that God chose the Jews because of his desire to redeem humankind from the curse of sin. The whole human race stands condemned, but out of sheer mercy, God has chosen to save some (the Jews, under the Old Covenant, and those whom he has chosen in Christ, under the New).

That isn't the "Christian" take on it, it's pretty much only the Calvinist take on it. In fact, it's really hyper (5 point) Calvinism, which despite the "new Calvinism" movement, is relatively rare these days.

A more common Christian take on it is that Israel was chosen to be a light to all nations, harkening back to the Abrahamic covenant when God says that thru Abraham all nations will be blest.

Of course, that seems to go a bit wonky by the time we get to Joshua/the conquest. But leaving out that problematic bit for now, I have no problem with God choosing one group of people as the "demo group" to show the world what he is doing to redeem all of humanity.

quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
This, of course, begs the question, "Then why doesn't God save everybody?"

I don't have an answer for that one --- which is why I, with Origen, William Barclay and others, tend to side with old-fashioned Restorationist Universalism.

I lean toward universalism as well, or at least agnostic universalism (it's up to God to judge). There's a lot of different takes on the question of salvation besides the Calvinist one above-- Wesleyan, anabaptist, Open, etc. But I think anything that gets away from hyper-Calvinist double predestination is a vast improvement.

(cross posted with Nick who says much the same as the first para)

[ 20. April 2016, 16:59: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Just because the Hebrews (I don't know that they were Jews yet) thought they were chosen and used YHWH-God as their tribal god totem doesn't mean they were right. It just means they were like most tribes.

FWIW, tribes of indigenous people in Canada within historical documentation of the past 200 years or so are well documented to refer to themselves as something along the lines of "The People", meaning the 'real human beings', and others with often disparaging terms. I got from Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" that New Guinea tribes when meeting someone 'not of our people' tried to figure out if they're obligated to kill the person or if they can justify not. I think this sort of parallels what the OT people were thinking and doing. It makes the awful Joshua genocidal episodes look a little more typically human.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I'm not convinced the Jews in the Old Testament are portrayed as particularly blessed. Most of their history seems to be of domination and oppression by more powerful Gentile empires.

Nor does there seem to be much correlation between devotion to Yahweh and temporal success. The most successful kings are probably Omri and Ahab, but they both count as bad guys. Goodies like Hezekiah and Josiah aren't all that successful.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

A more common Christian take on it is that Israel was chosen to be a light to all nations, harkening back to the Abrahamic covenant when God says that thru Abraham all nations will be blest.

That is also a widespread view in Reformed circles, you do not need to take an anti-Calvinist view to adopt it.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Just because the Hebrews (I don't know that they were Jews yet) thought they were chosen and used YHWH-God as their tribal god totem doesn't mean they were right. It just means they were like most tribes.

This is the nagging thought I can't dismiss.

quote:
FWIW, tribes of indigenous people in Canada within historical documentation of the past 200 years or so are well documented to refer to themselves as something along the lines of "The People", meaning the 'real human beings', and others with often disparaging terms. I got from Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" that New Guinea tribes when meeting someone 'not of our people' tried to figure out if they're obligated to kill the person or if they can justify not. I think this sort of parallels what the OT people were thinking and doing. It makes the awful Joshua genocidal episodes look a little more typically human.

Oh, they're terribly human. It's claiming they were divine that gives me the problems.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The Jewish take on this is that they were chosen to be a priestly people.

There is nothing superior about priesthood - just different roles for different people.

And, when suffering comes, Fiddler opn the roof expressed it well as 'Can't you choose someone else for a change?'

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

A more common Christian take on it is that Israel was chosen to be a light to all nations, harkening back to the Abrahamic covenant when God says that thru Abraham all nations will be blest.
That is also a widespread view in Reformed circles, you do not need to take an anti-Calvinist view to adopt it.

Indeed-- as I said, the position Weary Pilgrim was describing is really a hyper- Calvinist pov.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
it's pretty much only the Calvinist take on it. In fact, it's really hyper (5 point) Calvinism, which despite the "new Calvinism" movement, is relatively rare these days.

[ 20. April 2016, 18:28: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

I think the idea of being protected and chosen by God is hugely powerful for vulnerable/oppressed groups of people. Look at how civil rights movements have used the language of Exodus.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Jewish take on this is that they were chosen to be a priestly people.

There is nothing superior about priesthood - just different roles for different people.

They claimed it didn't they? They said that God claimed it for them - which is or isn't putting the words in God's mouth?

Where I live, the Cree, Dene, and Saulteaux nations (and Metis if we include what Louis Riel believed) all believed they were special, some of them still do. They all have had the same sorts of belief. Again, it doesn't mean they are right. It means they believe it.

quote:
Leo
And, when suffering comes, Fiddler opn the roof expressed it well as 'Can't you choose someone else for a change?'

This is interesting, and I think a common sentiment for colonized peoples.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Just to throw another idea into the mix. A friend of mine was a part of what she called reformed Judaism. She said that they believed not that God had chosen the Jews but that the Jews had chosen God. It's an interesting thought that throws up lots of issues with God's sovereignty and runs entirely contrary to Calvinist views, intuitively I sort of like the idea though, but need to give it more thought.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I don't see it as problematic as much as necessary that the one living God should be revealed through Israel his servant and through any descendants of his who served God too. The covenant included those who believed in and served God through the Israelites, as I understand it.

In a world in which everyone thought their gods rewarded or punished them according to whether they prospered or not, only by his protection when they served him might God be known by the peoples of the world.

The problem was, they kept worshipping idols as well, and failing to serve God. The time came for God to send his son as an example, so that all who believe in him will not perish......

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

My vague understanding is many people/cultures believe they are God's special people. Why can't they all be right? If you have three children, each of the three is special to you the parent.

Trouble arises when one of the kids believes only that one is special and the others are not.

As to charging interest, that might be a variation of "don't adopt their ways among yourselves" with also awareness dealing with outsiders is dealing with a conflicting value system, there's no obligation to open oneself to abuse by the outsiders.

If you have a community in which people freely loan without charging - borrow a tool, borrow money, community pressure will make sure the borrower returns it if possible.

If you lend to someone not part of that community, the borrower has no community social pressure making sure he repays. Charging interest substitutes for social pressure on the borrower to play fair.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Reading with interest, as always, but just posting to say that, as an atheist, I have a clear answer to the question. No God, therefore any people who thought they were specially chosen by any such thing were kidding themselves, however much they believed they were right. I am not a special human beingNone of us are*, we are all the current living descendants of an unbroken evolutionary chain. I think I am very lucky to have been born and have been able to live my life, with all its difficulties and joys.
There are very few of us who can say that they were never special for anyone ever, I think.
*I know that grammatically none is singular, but it doesn't sound right to say 'none is' here.

[ 21. April 2016, 14:34: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I think the idea of being protected and chosen by God is hugely powerful for vulnerable/oppressed groups of people. Look at how civil rights movements have used the language of Exodus.

Indeed. And this, I think, is significant-- not that Israel was "special" in and of itself, but that God has a bias toward the oppressed. Howard Thurman articulates this well in Jesus and the Disinherited.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Just as an aside, I think there are some mistaken views about hyper-calvinism. Believers in the propositions of the Synod of Dordt, or the classical reformed confesstions (Westminster, Scottish, Begian etc) which include the so-called 5 points are simply Calvinists, although many object to the term, and prefer "Reformed".

The dispute with Hyper-Calvinism is over the free offer of the Gospel, as per Wikipedia:

quote:
Hyper-Calvinism is a branch of Protestant theology that denies a general design in the death of Jesus Christ, the idea of an indiscriminate free offer of the gospel to all persons and a universal duty to believe the Lord Jesus Christ died for them. It is at times regarded as a variation of Calvinism, but critics emphasize its differences to traditional Calvinistic beliefs.

That is a very minority view hardly found today, and never widespread.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I wasn't aware anyone had claimed the mantel "hyper-Calvinist". I was using it in a more colloquial way to simply mean "an extreme form of Calvinism". I'm ordained in a Reformed denomination so speaking from that perspective-- i.e. within the Reformed camp, 5 point Calvinism is relatively rare and "extreme".

fwiw, Theopedia mentions both usages of the term "hyper-Calvinist".

[ 21. April 2016, 20:42: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Reading with interest, as always, but just posting to say that, as an atheist, I have a clear answer to the question. No God, therefore any people who thought they were specially chosen by any such thing were kidding themselves, however much they believed they were right.

With respect, SusanDoris, we could all pretty much have taken that for granted.

We get that you don't believe in God and that you think beliefs to the contrary are just wrong-headed - we really do.

But, given how little (IMHO) such an "answer" could constructively add to this discussion, I do wonder why you thought it worth posting in the first place. How, exactly, did you think things would go from there?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Back off. She's one of us now, and sometimes its enough just to be invited to the party.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

cliffdweller--

[Overused]

re your "Back off" post.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Recent posters' attention is drawn to this Admin ruling in the Styx.

This thread is not about SusanDoris, or about the topic of belief in God or otherwise, and this latest tangent has already been flagged to the admins.

/hosting

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I don't know what to say, really! [Smile]

I've typed and deleted several tries already.
My main thought is gratitude for the presence of this forum and its always interesting and thoughtful discussions.

[ 22. April 2016, 10:05: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Sometimes I like to imagine that God thought: "Let's try something else with one small group. The underdog. Let's show that it doesn't need to be based on human sacrifice, strength of arms etc."

And maybe He still has a weakness for Israel. For example, He'd like Jerusalem to live up to its name.

[ 22. April 2016, 10:10: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

SusanDoris, if you have something to say about my previous host post, or the admin post to which it refers, or the thread that resulted in that admin post, the place to do so is on the relevant thread in the Styx.

Not here.

I trust that's clear.

/hosting

[ 22. April 2016, 10:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
No God, therefore any people who thought they were specially chosen by any such thing were kidding themselves, however much they believed they were right.....
There are very few of us who can say that they were never special for anyone ever, I think.

Very much in agreement here.

Except for the "no God" part. Clearly everyone is special to God, and therefore no one is more special than others.

In my view the whole "chosen people" concept is merely a device to express a much deeper idea. It is a way of portraying the happiness that is inherent in doing God's will.

It is also a brilliant historical prop. Working with human free will, God brought into being a body of teaching that is tangible and permanent - and that would have far reaching effects on the whole human race. He worked with a particular group of people who had the talents and inclinations to bring it off. They were not better or worse than anyone else, but they were special, just as all people are special.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/

Recent posters' attention is drawn to this Admin ruling in the Styx.

This thread is not about SusanDoris, or about the topic of belief in God or otherwise, and this latest tangent has already been flagged to the admins.

/hosting

Duly noted, Eutychus.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:

This, of course, begs the question, "Then why doesn't God save everybody?"

Indeed. Didn't Christ save the world - as in creation - when he died on the cross? Not just a relatively small handful of lucky individual human beings? Isn't that the good news we're supposed to be sharing. 'He died to save us all'; in the cross wasn't 'Christ reconciling the world' back to God. After that, it's a question of degrees of awareness; do I know it's Jesus who has saved me? Do I care? If I care, am I living as if it means something significant to me?

As to how God calls us to account for our lives lived in the knowledge or lack of knowledge of the salvation of the world by Christ, is, of course, between him and the individual involved, imo.

As for the Chosen People of God? At the usual risk of being labelled a revisionist liberal unbeliever in the Bible, I would have thought that that was mostly down to the Hebrew/Jewish nation having been blessed with a highly organized oral and written tradition of creation legend, wisdom literature and religious and theological practice.

I have no doubt God was pretty thoroughly involved with their developing history and that the Spirit availed itself of opportunities to break through into such oral and written traditions to establish God's presence and purpose. But nothing could be more natural than that an almost uniquely highly articulate, and organised, nation coming to the conclusion that God must be on their side. It's a very common feature of all such nations! Especially when there are almost no competing contemporaneous narratives of equal successful stature to challenge the claim.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I believe God offers salvation to everyone. I also believe that everyone is free to refuse it.

I don't know whether anyone actually does.

Moo

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
As for the Chosen People of God? At the usual risk of being labelled a revisionist liberal unbeliever in the Bible, I would have thought that that was mostly down to the Hebrew/Jewish nation having been blessed with a highly organized oral and written tradition of creation legend, wisdom literature and religious and theological practice.

That's the way I see it too.

Whatever it was, it obviously worked. [Biased]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
No God, therefore any people who thought they were specially chosen by any such thing were kidding themselves, however much they believed they were right.....
There are very few of us who can say that they were never special for anyone ever, I think.
Very much in agreement here.

Except for the "no God" part. Clearly everyone is special to God, and therefore no one is more special than others.

Thank you for your post. That is certainly the belief I had when young.

quote:
In my view the whole "chosen people" concept is merely a device to express a much deeper idea. It is a way of portraying the happiness that is inherent in doing God's will.

I think I could probably say here that the actions you choose to take which are God's will and which bring happiness are more or less identical to the actions I would take without the attribution to God.
We try to do the best we can in life - to do the right thing.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think I could probably say here that the actions you choose to take which are God's will and which bring happiness are more or less identical to the actions I would take without the attribution to God.
We try to do the best we can in life - to do the right thing.

Maybe another way to put it is to say that life is better when we behave in a way that is consistent with the long term well-being of everything in creation. The greater the percentage of humans who intentionally do this, the better life will be.

In my view, the concept of what that ultimate well-being is, and what contributes to it, is similar to a belief in God.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I believe God offers salvation to everyone. I also believe that everyone is free to refuse it.

I don't know whether anyone actually does.

Moo

It occurs to me that we are all chosen to born by a miraculous lottery or race by too many sperm to one egg. There doesn' t seem to be choice there. I neither recall chosing or refusing.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Personally, I will let God be God. I accept the universality of the Gospel. There is no chosen or unchosen in my book. God is God. As my pastor used to say, when we try to draw a line between chosen or unchosen, God will always be on the other side.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think I could probably say here that the actions you choose to take which are God's will and which bring happiness are more or less identical to the actions I would take without the attribution to God.
We try to do the best we can in life - to do the right thing.
Maybe another way to put it is to say that life is better when we behave in a way that is consistent with the long term well-being of everything in creation. The greater the percentage of humans who intentionally do this, the better life will be.

In my view, the concept of what that ultimate well-being is, and what contributes to it, is similar to a belief in God.

/thank you again.
this has been a most interesting day of reading, thinking and posting here on SoF.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

God's election of Israel, is a call to vocation, a call to service and witness.

I believe it was Barth who argued, that Jesus, as representative of Israel, perfectly fulfilled Israel's mission. In this way, as Christians we can understand for example, the Servant Songs of Isaiah to refer both to Jesus, and to the people of God.

In this way, there are not two covenants, but a single vocation to bless and minister to the world. It is through Jesus, that Gentiles are grafted into Israel's mission.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But nothing could be more natural than that an almost uniquely highly articulate, and organised, nation coming to the conclusion that God must be on their side. It's a very common feature of all such nations!

Dunno, ISTM that most of the Old Testament shows Israel and Judah very much in the shadow of Egypt and Assyria and Babylon and even the Philistines.

I have heard it claimed as remarkable that the Jews preserved their belief in Yahweh through the Exile. Normally such a devastating defeat would be taken as a sign that their god had also been defeated on the cosmic plane, and they should transfer their devotion to the conquering god. (I don't know how true this is.)

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
This, of course, begs the question, "Then why doesn't God save everybody?"

If we combine a belief in sheep and goats, as in Matthew 25, with a belief that salvation is entirely in God's hands(Matt 19:26) we would have to conclude that God chooses some for salvation and some for damnation. My problem is that I'm unable to believe in a God who is omniscient, yet creates sentient beings for the purpose of eternally damning them. This is why I'm very close to being a universalist. Even the idea that God respects our free will and allows us to damn ourselves doesn't, in my opinion, add up.

St Augustine came up with the idea of persevering grace, by which those chosen for salvation would be unable to fall away from that path. The idea is repeated in Calvin's irresistible grace. It doesn't involve people being coerced into salvation, but in the grace to freely choose it. If God can bestow such grace on people, He can bestow it on all people. If He refuses to do so, He is creating beings solely for damnation. That is one of the reasons for my universalism.

Many Christians of the early church arrived at the same conclusions, such as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian. It was Augustine who closed the door on such theology in the West. For this, I could never be anything other than a universalist.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I believe God offers salvation to everyone. I also believe that everyone is free to refuse it.

I don't know whether anyone actually does.

Moo
It occurs to me that we are all chosen to born by a miraculous lottery or race by too many sperm to one egg. There doesn' t seem to be choice there. I neither recall chosing or refusing.

But being born is not the same as being saved. people make many choices after they are born.

Moo

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Normally such a devastating defeat would be taken as a sign that their god had also been defeated on the cosmic plane, and they should transfer their devotion to the conquering god. (I don't know how true this is.)

I think actually the opposite is the case.

Defeated peoples, and especially people who suffer significant hardship, tend to believe all the more strongly.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0