|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Daniel 9:24-27
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
makes perfect sense to say as a parallelism "Peace and mercy on all who follow this rule, and on the Israel of God" as different descriptions of the same community
Steve this comes down to whether we have to make sense of what he says, exegete what he says. You are doing the former.
You were the one who spoke of my interpretation as 'nonsensical' I think.... It does, I also think, help if our exegesis does make sense.
My exegesis took account of that slightly odd phrasing 'the Israel of God' - that is, in Christ Gentiles are 'co-heirs' of the promises making ONE people, all Israel though some natural and some 'adopted'.
quote:
Regarding your overall argument:
it is true that dispensationalism stands entirely on a distinction between natural Israel and the NT church. This is true despite the obvious fact that the two are, in the present aeon combined into a spiritual entity where both partake of the benefits of Christ. That is essentially what Paul teaches both in Eph 2 and Romans 9,10 and 11.
I also in fact make a distinction between 'natural Israel' and 'the Church'. It is the distinction between 'The Church' as the assembly of God's faithful people, Jew and Gentile made one in Christ, and a 'natural Israel' of those Jews who reject God's Messiah and are faithless and so outside the covenant and its promises.
For the faithful the promises are not just fulfilled but 'hyper-fulfilled', in this world or the new heavens and new earth, as is explained at length in Hebrews. For the currently faithless there is salvation only in faith in Christ and they are, without that faith, simply not entitled to the promises anyway.
quote:
If that distinction is not allowed in one’s theology then, despite any protestation, one is committing to replacement theology as a logical extension. This thinking has inexorably led to antsemitism through the centuries.
I repeat CONTINUITY THEOLOGY. The Church, Jew and Gentile combined in faith, is in continuity with OT Israel. Those Jews who reject Jesus cut themselves off from the 'Qahal/Ekklesia/Congregation' of God's people and ipso facto have no covenant rights or promises to rely upon, though God may be gracious despite their failure.
What has led to 'anti-semitism' was the idea of setting up 'Christian states' in which Jews as dissenters would inevitably be seen as traitors to be persecuted. Avoid that step and Christians and Jews will both be dissenters, without power to persecute each other, and seeking instead to persuade with love.
quote:
If on the other hand, one allows for the distinction,then it becomes quite reasonable to say with Paul that natural Israel is temporarily blinded..as a nation, notwithstanding, individual Jews can be saved, until, the ‘times of the gentiles’ are fulfilled. Indeed he teaches an ultimate national salvation for them when they recognise their messiah. This is taught in Zechariah as well.
Dispensationalism not necessary to believe that. IF by 'natural Israel' you mean those who have rejected the Messiah Jesus, yes they are temporarily blinded, yes in the meantime individuals may be saved, and yes somewhere towards the end of the present age the nation as a whole will finally, by the grace of God rather than by covenant right, see the error of rejecting Jesus and will be saved by faith in Christ.
quote:
To say national Israel is no longer a factor in God’s agenda because they are now integrated into the church,is to invert things. It means that the promises to Israel,yet unfulfilled, cannot be fulfilled and thus,God is a liar. It is this charge Paul refutes..”God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew”.
Are you sure Hebrews hasn't somehow been left out of Dispensationalist Bibles?
I'm a bit puzzled what these promises are that won't be fulfilled; and also it would seem an empty fulfilment unless those receiving the fulfilment are also eternally saved....
quote:
It is true Darby was a flawed and autocratic individual who created great division in the church of his day. However, for me, his grasp of these things was not flawed,not a misstep. The misstep was made far earlier, by Augustine. The reformation maintained his theology in regard to eschatology and this has continued.
While I do indeed feel that this separation of 'natural Israel' is a misstep, it is a minor one compared to the big misstep which resulted in the whole rapture etc scheme.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I get the impression, Steven, that Christian anti-Semitism predates Constantine and the 'Christian state's thing, so your neat catch-all schema of the source of all ills doesn't quite fit ... any more than Jamat's narrow reductionism in boiling everything down to some kind of progression from the RCC to the Reformers and from thence to 19th century eschatological speculations.
It may make for a neatly manageable set of index cards, but as ever, real life is a lot more messy and complex than that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And simpler. Once the apophenia is cut out.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Steve Langton:
quote:
My exegesis took account of that slightly odd phrasing 'the Israel of God' - that is, in Christ Gentiles are 'co-heirs' of the promises making ONE people, all Israel though some natural and some 'adopted
The Israel of God in Gal 6:16 signified saved Jews...and in Christ, all people can be one people in a spiritual sense, certainly, because all who accept Christ as saviour are members of the true church. However, YOUR interpretation or eisigesis is dictated by your assumption that Jew and Gentile actually have the same destiny. In fact Paul obviously separates saved Gentiles and saved Jews. That is what the text says. Yet both, in this aeon, are one people. In a future era, it is a different story.
quote:
‘natural Israel' of those Jews who reject God's Messiah and are faithless and so outside the covenant and its promises.
OK , but God is faithful to his promises and the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional. The fact that nationally speaking they are blinded does not mean that they have lost their destiny as a nation. They are temporarily excluded from the benefits of the covenant but the covenant is not thereby nullified. This is very plain in Romans 11:28.
quote:
What has led to 'anti-semitism' was the idea of setting up 'Christian states' in which Jews as dissenters
Well if you blame the Jews for the death of Christ, that is where it begins.
quote:
.. a bit puzzled what these promises are that won't be fulfilled; and also it would seem an empty fulfilment unless those receiving the fulfilment are also eternally saved
There is a national salvation of Israel promised in scripture. There is no puzzle. Many covenant promises in scripture have no obvious fulfilment yet therefore they must be future. There are many but Is 59:20-60:14 is representative. It is a clear promise to national Israel once they have repented and recognised Jesus as their messiah that they will be the centre of earthly government in God’s kingdom, probably the millennium reign.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I get the impression, Steven, that Christian anti-Semitism predates Constantine and the 'Christian state's thing, so your neat catch-all schema of the source of all ills doesn't quite fit ...
'Steve' please, or 'Stephen' if you insist on being formal....
There would no doubt be some racial anti-Semitism among Gentile converts - but bear in mind that in the first few centuries they were essentially joining a Jewish sect with an emphatically Jewish Messiah and original leaders such as Peter and Paul. If you were seriously racially anti-Semitic could you do that?
Thus at least in the first couple of centuries, what is going on is not racial disagreement but religious disagreement. The disagreement is between Christians who, of whatever ethnicity, accepted Jesus the Jewish Messiah as Lord, and on the other hand Jews who had rejected Jesus as a heretic and who, bear in mind, were often active persecutors of Christians. It superficially appears 'racist' simply because Judaism is so much the religion of one race/ethnic group. A similar confusion could arise in other cases where a religion is very much identified with one race - eg Hinduism with Indians or Shinto with Japanese.
So long as Christianity remained itself a dissenting group within society, and very conscious of its Jewish roots, racial anti-Semitism would be restrained. But in the national church created after Constantine, with a whole Empire of nominal Christians and Jews as a minority dissenting group, anti-Jewish feeling would be heightened and become increasingly racist.
I agree it's not absolutely 'black-and-white' - but I think my basic point still stands.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Jamat, given the imminent changes on the Ship, I think we'll have to follow this up in a new thread on the new Ship....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Except that the 2nd century Epistle of Barnabas could be regarded as fairly anti-Semitic too ...
Ok, so it's target is 'Judaising' Christians, which was an issue the apostle Paul had in the previous century of course.
But I'm not sure your neat distinction between religious and ethnic arguments/issues applied quite so discernibly or clearly back in those days.
I'm not trying to excuse the marginalisation and persecution of Jews in post-Constantinian, post-Theodocian Christendom. I'm simply suggesting that things aren't as clear-cut as some of us here like to make out.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
[QB]But I'm not sure your neat distinction between religious and ethnic arguments/issues applied quite so discernibly or clearly back in those days.[/B]
Actually I'm pretty sure myself it wouldn't be all that neat a distinction. To start with, the Jews of that time were pretty much pro-Jewish racists themselves. Over the years the balance changed from Jews using Roman authority to persecute Christians themselves to Jews themselves in a difficult position after the Jewish wars, and by the mid-C2 there were few Jewish converts.
And if you think about it all kinds of other complications over the years....
But certainly NT Christianity is not racially anti-Semitic and realistically can't be, given the Jewish origins of Christianity.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
