Posted on 05/26/2011 11:29:59 AM PDT by topcat54
All of the following material is from Rev. Fred Klett who in turn cites other Reformed sources or authors.
The Westminster Larger Catechism on the Jewish people:
Has God promised anything regarding ethnic Israel? Good people are on all sides of this hotly debated topic. Among Reformed folk there are many points of view. Great men like Puritan John Owen spoke of the revival of the Jewish people and their restoration to the land. Others see the Jewish people as simply one of the peoples of the earth, certainly with a special history. What are the implications of the fact that the Kingdom of God is no longer centered in one geographical location or ethnic group? The meek now inherit the whole earth. Does that mean that the earthly Israel is no longer important? Are the Jewish people no longer of any special concern at all? And what about the Arabs? What is the answer? The Westminster Larger Catechism states:
(Excerpt) Read more at triablogue.blogspot.com ...
So what? Should the word "Jew" never be used in your opinion...is it derogatory in your view at all times or acceptable only when used as a subject of a sentence rather than object?
What word in your opinion would be more acceptable as "object"?
I do fear that by over emphasizing the union of marriage it slights the individual Covenant each person has with G-d, and the many Commandments.
In Judaism it really depends on personal observance. Marriage is not considered the most sacred commandment, and never has been, though I’m not discounting it. I’m sure there are Talmudic scholars debating this amongst themselves as we speak somewhere.
When Yemenite and Ethiopeon Jews arrived in Israel, with unique thousand year old traditions, some were still practicing Biblical style polygyny. It was an interesting predicament.
As an aside, it’s considered forbidden to proselytize and act as missionaries for Judaism. Instead, it is said that by living by example, and doing good deeds, the Jewish people are filling their quota, so to speak, acting as ambassadors. One ultra orthodox movement, called Chabbad goes the furthest to do outreach and education, and pushes that line. Still, their focus is typically towards secular Jews.
“So what? Should the word “Jew” never be used in your opinion...is it derogatory in your view at all times or acceptable only when used as a subject of a sentence rather than object?”
Well, there are offensive ways to use it as a verb, or adjective too.
It clearly matters how it’s used. It’s not the word, it’s how it’s used.
Similarly, saying ‘To the Black” when talking about a community is a little iffy. Saying “Black influence” would be fine. Yet, phrasings like “Jew influence”, or “Jew boyfriend” are unacceptable.
Ah, so the ethno-religious grouping as you put it is not the problem.
It's rather a group of some kind which may not want to be classified as "object" in your opinion.
I can see where "to the christian" might be perceived as offensive also depending on context. However, in this context there should be no hurt feelings since it is simply a direct quote from Scripture. The context in Scripture is exactly the same as "to the Gentile" which follows directly afterwards.
“The context in Scripture is exactly the same as “to the Gentile” which follows directly afterwards.”
Which I wouldn’t take issue with. I’m not suggesting scripture be changed.
It’s what was pulled as a title for the blog post, out of context, and the lack of awareness for how it read that I found of concern.
I'll bet you have. :)
Strange questions. Israels restoration as a state after 2000 years is an accident of history? The bible clearly states that Israel will be regathered and redeemed by G-d. The gentiles will then stream to Israel to learn of the law and G-d. Isaiah 2:2-3
Jeremiah 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.
No, the nations will learn from Israel of G-d.
Many Reformed theologians, like theologians in general, have believed in a future for national Israel. The difference between their biblical outlook and what goes around in dispensationalist/futurist/rapturist circles is considerable.
Dispensationalists believe that the modern state of Israel is prophetically significant in spite of the fact that they exhibit no true faith towards the triune God of the Bible. Dispensationalists believe we are the terminal generation because of what happened 1948 -- a purely political action -- not because any true faith is exhibited in the nation
The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that blessing is predicated on faith, true faith in the God of Abraham, and the Savior of mankind, the Lord Jesus Christ. National repentance will be exhibited in Israel before the return of Christ for His own. That may be in the near future, or, more likely, it may still be many generations away. Of course this is true of all the nations, not just Israel.
It is necessary that Israel does not exhibit true faith in the triune God until the time of the gentiles ends. If Israel comes to Christ before the rapture, I will admit that I was wrong.
I understand your points, however *Marraige* in itself is the cornerstone of any civilized society, it is the most *Sacred* because it brings fourth life creating human beings that have both a Male and Female parent that G-d created himself....
This sacred covenant was started before anything else with G-d’s creation of *people* in fact G-d was so angered with what peverted marraige he destroyed the world with a flood in Noah’s Day and he destroyed Sodom...
Can you think of a more Sacred Covenant than the Marraige Covenant?
“National repentance will be exhibited in Israel before the return of Christ for His own.”
Now we get into the problematic situation of one groups belief being predicated on another groups dissolution on their religion. All major Abrahamic faiths have a version of this.
It can present a problem of coexistence, unless you arrive at a different interpretation. In other words, can you be faithful to the Gospel and believe Jews have a sacred right to their practices without compromise?
For Jews, it was the Pagan/Amalaks and others who are no longer a factor, and today there is an extreme faction who refuse to acknowledge Israel’s creation, as they believe it contradicts the notion of a Biblical Israel, which they believe requires the building of the Third Temple, which will either usher in a Messiah, or be delivered by the Messiah. Jesus is in no way shape or form a Messiach figure for Torah observant Jews.
Finally, you can support Israel and Jews as brothers and sisters without needing to cite scriptural reasons for it. The biblical argument rarely wins unless it’s an argument amongst others who already subscribe to that doctrine. For example, none of us could give a hoot what the Koran says...although it too does speak of G-D’s covenant with the Jews.
“Can you think of a more Sacred Covenant than the Marraige Covenant?”
Are you sure a union between a man and woman is the holiest partnership? I’d say it’s with G-D. It’s with whatever scripture you follow. It’s an eternal one, not a mortal time stamped one. It’s an all encompassing thing, and includes rules of law, and so on.
Abraham’s personal covenant with G-D is discussed in Genesis. Certainly it was stronger than any covenant he could have with another human, even Sarah.
By the way, I would never say your personal beliefs are wrong, but picking up a Jewish Hebrew/English translation version of the 5 books of Moses might be really interesting for you, if you have the time, and give a little more detail that was possibly lost in the New Testament. The sections on commandments are argued about endlessly later in the Talmud (which is a collection of Sages giving theories), many of which were of no importance to Christians, but still would form a better understanding of what Jews mean by a Covenant with G-D.
No I agree..The Sacred Covenant Man has with G-d as in Abraham is a covenant of promise that can never be broken that is why G-d’s promise to the Jewish nation and Israel cannot be broken..
What I am saying is that G-d’s Marriage Covenant is a Holy one for Male and Female and one that he has brought destruction on nations who have peverted that Sacred Covenant...
The Marriage Covenant is the first one G-d gave to mankind is it not?
The above line is classic "liberal elite". It's code for 'there is no right or wrong'. Which is bull. I didn't follow the jump ... but doubt it got saner.
Oh, and there are differences - the Jewish people created a sane modern, G-d based, democratic culture - which is good. And too many Arabs act like their religion is a control freak death cult with the added benefit of being able to bully women. Yeah, and it's totalitarian - not democratic. Sorry, but that's NOT equal, not the same, and good people aren't on both sides...
“And too many Arabs act like their religion is a control freak death cult”
I mostly agree, only I wouldn’t want to forget that there are Christian Arabs, Jews of Arabic culture, Druze, Kurds, and other non-Muslims who do not fall into that category.
The other thing to point out, is that for Jews, any talk of end times that involves their conversion, redemption, or acceptance of Jesus, is very similar to that same death cult talk. Is that still a source of tension or even frustration? I don’t think so.
No reason that because Israel is added to the mix, suddenly it causes moral confusion.
“The Marriage Covenant is the first one G-d gave to mankind is it not?”
I personally don’t look at it that way, but I understand why that works for you. See, G-d created mankind, but historically speaking, we know Abraham descended from idol worshippers, surrounded by pagans. G-d didn’t doom society then. Also, Adam and Eve aren’t considered the patriarch or matriarch for Jews or Christians.
It just simplifies things to suggest vows between a man and woman act as the cornerstone of any religion. Certainly it’s an important element of keeping an observant household, but again, spinsterhood, and bachelorhood aren’t really at the top of the sins list.
Since God’s timetable is not ours, you and I will probably be quite dead before this ever happens. It's already 2000 years and counting.
You could be right on this point. The early dispensationalist recognized that the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 represented periods of time between Christ's ascension and his return. They also realized that they were in the time of Philadelphia and the return of Christ could not be imminent because the Church of the Laodiceans was yet to come. They correctly predicted that the Jews would return to their land in unbelief
I do not believe that the rapture is imminent but I think we are in the age of Laodicea. If Israel is to be pre-eminent during the tribulation, they must be left behind at the rapture. I do not see why I should discard the dispensational view at this time.
Watch Israel.
That’s a bogus interpretation of Revelation 2 and 3. There is nothing in the Bible to support the theory. It’s an example of dispensational allegorizing.
Watch Israel.
What exactly are we watching for? All I suspect is we’ll see her conversion en mass to faith in Jesus Christ prior to His coming.
Now I speculate. I believe we are in the years of plenty right now. There is an abundance of spiritual food
Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:It’s possible the rapture could be part of what brings on a famine. What do you suppose the Jews are going to find when they go looking for food?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.