Among Evangelicals, A Kinship With Jews: Some Skeptical of Growing Phenomenon

The Washington Post ^ | January 8, 2006 | Alan Cooperman

[Thinkin' Gal]

"I feel jealous sometimes. This term that keeps coming up in the Old Book — the Chosen, the Chosen," says the minister, who has made three trips to Israel and named his sons Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. "I'm a pardoned gentile, but I'm not one of the Chosen People. They're the apple of his eye."

Isaiah 11:10-13

10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.

[del4hope]

Evening rdb3.

I think along the lines that Jews are chosen as in Jesus was Jewish along the line of David. That said, Jesus' first coming changed everything. What I think of as a new covenant seems to be what most here are calling Replacement Theology.

[papertyger]

And a proselytising one, at that.

Isn't it funny how these guys ALWAYS come off like Amway salesmen with the loaded, leading, question?

Does anyone ever actually fall for that disingenuous flapdoodle?

[RegulatorCountry]

"disingenuous flapdoodle"

Good one, I'll have to file that away, right next to "flighty little flibbertigibbet," lol.

[Larry Lucido]

There's a word for smart asses like you. :-)

[rdb3]

Jesus is a Christian: the first Christian, born on the first Christmas.

Jesus was NOT a Christian. He was a Jew (in the flesh). A Jew's Jew. In fact, the first time the term "Christian" was used in the Bible was in Acts 11:26. That was after His Ascension.

The Apostle Paul was a Christian.

Correct.

The Apostle Luke was a Christian.

Luke was indeed a Christian, but he was not an Apostle. There is no record of him ever actually seeing Christ. Paul saw him on the road to Damascus, in glorified form of course.

This is a ch__ch. What's missing?

[rdb3]

What's poppin', fellow Snowflake?

Google up on Replacement Theology. You'll see it is nefarious.

This is a ch__ch. What's missing?

[Petronski]

stultus

[Larry Lucido]

Don't know what it means, but a slight rearrangement of letters and you could have had a palindrome.

[del4hope]

"the first time the term "Christian" was used in the Bible was in Acts 11:26"

Good point....at Antioch...because they were followers of "Christ".

[rdb3]

Good point....at Antioch...because they were followers of "Christ".

And when King Agrippa used it, it was an epithet. "Little Christs"

This is a ch__ch. What's missing?

[Petronski]

Much better result:

Sapiumentum (say pee oo MEN tum)

(sapi: wise) + (iumentum: beast of burden)



wise ass

[rdb3]

(sapi: wise) + (iumentum: beast of burden)

Okay, that does it. I'm going to bed. 0055hrs GMT-6 and I'm tired of looking at this long compilation on another screen. And you're adding Latin?

Rick James has left the building. Peace out!

This is a ch__ch. What's missing?

[del4hope]

I googled and I will admit that I am too ignorant to understand all this. Is what this states is that if Jews are not saved by believing in Christ's resurrection, they have no eternal life in heaven?

If this is not the age of the church, then what does our salvation mean??? THAT definitely is not negated according to Scripture. Being a Christian is a choice, being a Jew is not. However, it is difficult to understand, because in retrospect it was the Jewish Sanhedrin that did so much of the persecuting of Christ and His followers. However, even they were part of God's will. I do not have the answer. God does.

However, I am adverse to the terminology (wonder where it originated) of replacement “theology”. I would think our “faith” has a bottom line in John 3:16. That said, it continues to be debated on this thread whether or not that included the Jews.

[del4hope]

Good Night!

[papertyger]

In a nutshell, "replacement theology" is the belief that the Divine promises to Israel were forfeited when Christ was rejected, and those forfeited promises devolved to the Church.

It has nothing to do with salvation.

[Zetman]

"Mark A. Noll, a professor of Christian thought at Wheaton College, a center of evangelical scholarship in Illinois, said evangelicals are beginning to move away from supersessionism -- the centuries-old belief that with the coming of Jesus, God ended his covenant with the Jews and transferred it to the Christian church."

"Since the 1960s, the Roman Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations have renounced supersessionism and stressed their belief that the covenant between God and the Jewish people remains in effect."

Ok, I am confused. When did the Catholic Church renounce supersessionism?? I went to Catholic schools for nine years, and attend Mass weekly, and I do not recall ever hearing of such a "renouncement". However, I will admit that I am not an expert, so if I am wrong about this, then please let me know (in a gentle and Christian way!!).

By way of example, last year, I read Carl E. Olson's book entitled "Will Catholics Be 'Left Behind'?", published in 2003 (Olson is a devout Catholic who grew up in an Evangelical family and attended Evangelical theology schools before converting to Catholicism). In his book, he discusses all of this in a very detailed and scholarly way (Catholic teaching vs. Evangelical teaching about the End Times, the Jews, "The Rapture", etc...). His book contrasts Catholic theology to the theology espoused by the likes of Hal Lindsey, and Tim LaHaye in his "Left Behind" series. Olson seems to know his subject matter inside and out (whether you agree with his conclusions, or not).

Olson goes through great lenghts to explain in detail how the Catholic church believes that God transferred his covenant from the Jewish people to The Church at the coming of Christ. He makes NO mention of the Catholic Church having renounced this belief - in fact he says just the opposite!!

Now, this article in the Washington Post is claiming that beginning in the 1960's (around Vatican II, one would assume), that the Catholic church suddenly renounced its' centuries-old belief that God's covenant switched from the Jews to The Church at the coming of Christ. I must admit, I have not heard that this belief has been renounced!!! I don't recall EVER hearing this preached in any Catholic church. The only place I have heard such things said is when I have attended an Evangelical church. So, I must admit that all of this sounds very odd to me.

So, did the Catholic Church REALLY change it's teaching about the status of the Jews within the past 40 years?? Or is the Washington Post full of hot wind?? If anyone out there knows Catholic theology better than I do (not very difficult!!), and could enlighten me, I would appreciate it!!

[American in Israel]

Good observation.

[American in Israel]

What a crock. What is this person "guilty" of and who "pardoned" him.

He is guilty of sin. You know, screwing up and living not as God commands in the Bible.

Who pardoned him is Jesus, not because he was the Messiah, but because He was sacrificed on the Passover as a sinless Lamb. God set the Passover up so that we would recognize the Messiah when He came. Only God can reconcile us to Him, we cannot buy our way into perfection once stained by our deeds here on earth. It is like trying to buy back innocence.

Moreover, it's a heck of a lot easier for a non-Jew to gain a heavenly reward than for a Jew.

Sort of true at this point in time. But before Jesus, it was the opposite. It is true there are blinders on Jews these days for the sake of the Gentiles, yet many Jews do find a path to God through Jesus. Many Jews did in Jesus time too. The issue is religion over relationship. While religion points the way, that is all it does. I have come to believe that the blinders are formed partly of religion. If you seek Judaism because of cultural identity, or because of religion alone, with the current radical prejudice against Jesus, you will end up in a dead end street. But if you seek Judaism to get to know God it will actually point you right at the Messiah.

You are far better off as a Jew with faith in God in Judaism than any Gentile or Jew without. As a Christian I have no offense with Judaism, I do however have some with Rabbinical Judaism. Those who worship the wisdom of man will find a maze of inconsistent thought and frankly ridiculous conclusions. Roads to the Messiah are intentionally blocked, and roads to the worship of men are paved. But those who truly seek God Himself will not be disappointed, they will find him.

And where does he get off saying that Jews are the "apple of G-D's eye"? How does he know?

Simple, the Bible says so.

Deu 32:
9 For the LORD's portion is His people; Jacob is the place of His inheritance.
10 "He found him in a desert land And in the wasteland, a howling wilderness; He encircled him, He instructed him, He kept him as the apple of His eye.

ZEC 2:
8 For thus says the Lord of hosts: "He sent Me after glory, to the nations which plunder you; for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye. 9 For surely I will shake My hand against them, and they shall become spoil for their servants.

Frankly after living with the Jews for 6 years, I believe that Christianity has a lot more to learn from the Jews than the Jews have to learn from Christianity. We have the head, but they have the body.

[gogogodzilla]

By your logic, Christ is d@mned, for only 'Christians' can go to heaven.

And Christ, being Jewish, thus cannot be there.

Hmmm...