Middle East Synod and Israel

[jerome_ky]

The statements by Monsignor Bustros regarding Israel, saying the Jews are not the chosen people and can’t “use” Scripture to justify “occupation” is really causing me a quandary. I know the Jews are not worshiping God correctly since they continue to reject Jesus. But to basically say that Jesus nullified the promises of God to the Jews is to ignore the Bible. Romans 9 says:

“For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.
They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises;
to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.”

These statements by this Monsignor are being used by Jews and Protestants to show that the Catholic Church is at best appeasing Islam, at worst an enemy of Israel. I don’t believe they qualtify as an official statement from the Vatican, but what is the position of the Church on Israel, and is it possible the Vatican will distance itself at some point from these statements?

 

[Robbinson]

The statements by Monsignor Bustros regarding Israel, saying the Jews are not the chosen people and can’t “use” Scripture to justify “occupation” is really causing me a quandary. I know the Jews are not worshiping God correctly since they continue to reject Jesus. But to basically say that Jesus nullified the promises of God to the Jews is to ignore the Bible. Romans 9 says:

“For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.
They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises;
to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.”

These statements by this Monsignor are being used by Jews and Protestants to show that the Catholic Church is at best appeasing Islam, at worst an enemy of Israel. I don’t believe they qualtify as an official statement from the Vatican, but what is the position of the Church on Israel, and is it possible the Vatican will distance itself at some point from these statements?

I share your anxst. What the Catholic Church actually teaches about “Israel” is in the Catholic Catechism: **“To the Jews beong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises, to them belong the patriarchs, and of th…eir race, according to the flesh, is the Christ; for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” **

Its sad that the statement of an individual (clearly with a personal bias given his background) is seen as speaking for the “Church”. I suppose there are messianic jews who will state unequivaocably that one “should” (or conversely) “should not” be Torah observant - but we would not subscribe their views (whatever their personal views were) to the formal view of the messnianic jewish movement. It will be interesting to see if there is a formal reaction/statement by the Vatican though - as the published comment is disturbing and contrary to actual Church doctrine and teaching regarding Israel.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The statements by Monsignor Bustros regarding Israel, saying the Jews are not the chosen people and can’t “use” Scripture to justify “occupation” is really causing me a quandary. I know the Jews are not worshiping God correctly since they continue to reject Jesus. But to basically say that Jesus nullified the promises of God to the Jews is to ignore the Bible. Romans 9 says:

“For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.
They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises;
to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.”

These statements by this Monsignor are being used by Jews and Protestants to show that the Catholic Church is at best appeasing Islam, at worst an enemy of Israel. I don’t believe they qualtify as an official statement from the Vatican, but what is the position of the Church on Israel, and is it possible the Vatican will distance itself at some point from these statements?

The monsignor is correct. The Jews have no scriptural mandate to occupy what is modern day Israel.

I’m not sure what you see in Romans 9 that leads you to believe otherwise.

 

[Robbinson]

The monsignor is correct. The Jews have no scriptural mandate to occupy what is modern day Israel.

I’m not sure what you see in Romans 9 that leads you to believe otherwise.

Hi - there are two distinct issues:

1. Do jews remain God’s chosen people and is their calling “irrevocable” (as taught in the Catechism) or has Israel been “replaced” by the Church? On this issue, I believe the monsignor’s statements were incorrect and iconisistent Church teaching. There remains a covenant between Israel as a collective and God which remains unfulfilled (and will one day be fulfilled) - they shall return to God through the Messiah (this is forshadowed in Romans 11) and they continue to show people the way to the messiah through the Hebrew scriptures (even if ironically not finding Him themselves “yet”).
2. Do jews have some right to the land of Israel -“now” in the state of Israel. This is a tougher question. I do believe the land promises to Abraham and his descendants continues as a to be fulfilled covenant. Ezekiel prophecizes their return - but in studying that out one will see that first they will return physically, and only later “spiritually”.

I don’t believe occupation of land exempts Israel from accountability - not at all - as to whether this is the “end time” when Israel’s physical residence of the land will be followed by spiritual residence - I don’t know - although it is amazing that after almost 2,000 years of exile, suddenly the land is occupied again as a nation “born in a day” as prophesized in Isaiah.

While the “Israel of God” is, in a spiritual sense, all believers (Jews and Gentile), there remains a special/different covenant relationship between natural Israel and God. Its not better or worse in terms of salvation - that for all will come through faith in Christ and there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile believers in Christ in terms of salvation.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

The monsignor is correct. The Jews have no scriptural mandate to occupy what is modern day Israel.

I’m not sure what you see in Romans 9 that leads you to believe otherwise.

I can not agree with the word “occupy.” The Jewish people live in Israel.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I can not agree with the word “occupy.” The Jewish people live in Israel.

What I was trying to say is that there is no scriptural mandate for a modern day Israel.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Hi - there are two distinct issues:

1. Do jews remain God’s chosen people and is their calling “irrevocable” (as taught in the Catechism) or has Israel been “replaced” by the Church? On this issue, I believe the monsignor’s statements were incorrect and iconisistent Church teaching. There remains a covenant between Israel as a collective and God which remains unfulfilled (and will one day be fulfilled) - they shall return to God through the Messiah (this is forshadowed in Romans 11) and they continue to show people the way to the messiah through the Hebrew scriptures (even if ironically not finding Him themselves “yet”).
   Blessings,

Brian

Good morning Brian,

I believe that Israel has been replaced by the Church or more accurately the Catholic Church. I see this as what the Church has always taught.

Which covenant is it that you believe remains?

 

[Robbinson]

Good morning Brian,

I believe that Israel has been replaced by the Church or more accurately the Catholic Church. I see this as what the Church has always taught.

Which covenant is it that you believe remains?

Hi

The Catholic Church does not teach the “replacement theology” you just articulated. While Jew and Gentile are together “one new man” in Christ and share the same path to salvation - there calling and promises to Israel remain “irrevocable”. This is the express teaching of the Catholic Catechism, which I cited earler: "To the Jews beong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises, to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ; for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable"

What covenant? The land covenant - the right someday to possess the lands promised to Abraham and his descendants (though this is based upon obedience, and Israel has been disobedient through history - though Israel’s ultimate return to the land is promised in scripture); the covenant to be God’s chosen people (chosen to be a light to the nations and prepare them for the Christ - while this has been fulfilled in a significant way leading up to Jesus, their remains, I believe, a significant covenantal role for Israel to show the glory of God in their ultimate acceptance of the Messiah in the end times - Zechariah 12; Romans 11).

I do agree with you that one a spiritual level - all those who accept Jesus/Yeshau as Lord and Messiah are spiritual Israel. But there remain promises and covenants in the bible which are directed to physical Israel. Including most notably that promise that some day God will rerunite “all of Israel” (e.g,. the lo;st 10 tribes which disappeared into the gentile nations) with Judah and Benjamin - making “1 stick”. This is also alluded to in Romans 11 when Paul says “all Israel” will be saved.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Pwrlftr]

Hi

The Catholic Church does not teach the “replacement theology” you just articulated. While Jew and Gentile are together “one new man” in Christ and share the same path to salvation - there calling and promises to Israel remain “irrevocable”. This is the express teaching of the Catholic Catechism, which I cited earler: "To the Jews beong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises, to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ; for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable"

Romans 11:28 states that is is the gifts and calling which are irrevocable. In context, the passage in Romans is dealing w/ salvation not land.

I do not know of a single father, council or pope who claimed that modern day Israel has a scriptural claim to the land it now possess. If you know of any evidence to the contrary please post it.

The covenant promise to Israel with regards to the land has already been fulfilled. There is nothing left to be done. More on this toward the end of my post.

The New Testament (New Covenant) did in fact revoke the land of Israel from the Jews since the promise of the land was under the Old Covenant which clearly has been replaced by the New Covenant (See 2Cor3:6-14 and Hebrews 8:1-13). Unless one believes in dual covenant theology I don’t see how one can still believe the Jews have a scriptural claim to the land in question. Then again, you probably aren’t a theologian either so if I am wrong please just show me.

As I mentioned above, the context of Romans 11:28 is about salvation. This is seemingly clear due to the remaining verses in chapter 11 speaking only of God offering the Jews salvation and not a plot of land in the Middle East.

What covenant? The land covenant - the right someday to possess the lands promised to Abraham and his descendants (though this is based upon obedience, and Israel has been disobedient through history - though Israel’s ultimate return to the land is promised in scripture); the covenant to be God’s chosen people (chosen to be a light to the nations and prepare them for the Christ - while this has been fulfilled in a significant way leading up to Jesus, their remains, I believe, a significant covenantal role for Israel to show the glory of God in their ultimate acceptance of the Messiah in the end times - Zechariah 12; Romans 11).

I do agree with you that one a spiritual level - all those who accept Jesus/Yeshau as Lord and Messiah are spiritual Israel. But there remain promises and covenants in the bible which are directed to physical Israel. Including most notably that promise that some day God will rerunite “all of Israel” (e.g,. the lo;st 10 tribes which disappeared into the gentile nations) with Judah and Benjamin - making “1 stick”. This is also alluded to in Romans 11 when Paul says “all Israel” will be saved.

Blessings,

Brian

The “land covenant” was under the Old Covenant which has been revoked. God has already fulfilled his promises to Israel and there is no other commitment with regards to the land issue. See Joshua 21:43-45, 1King8:56, Nehemiah 9:7-8).
Joshua 21​

43 Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land which he swore to give to their fathers; and having taken possession of it, they settled there.
44 And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers; not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands.
45 Not one of all the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.

1 Kings 8​

56 "Blessed be the LORD who has given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he promised; not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he uttered by Moses his servant.

Nehemiah 9​

7 Thou art the LORD, the God who didst choose Abram and bring him forth out of Ur of the Chalde’ans and give him the name Abraham;
8 and thou didst find his heart faithful before thee, and didst make with him the covenant to give to his descendants the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Per’izzite, the Jeb’usite, and the Gir’gashite; and thou hast fulfilled thy promise, for thou art righteous.

Brian, what do you think “all Israel” means in Romans 11?

 

[Robbinson]

The covenant promise to Israel with regards to the land has already been fulfilled. There is nothing left to be done. More on this toward the end of my post.

The New Testament (New Covenant) did in fact revoke the land of Israel from the Jews since the promise of the land was under the Old Covenant which clearly has been replaced by the New Covenant (See 2Cor3:6-14 and Hebrews 8:1-13). Unless one believes in dual covenant theology I don’t see how one can still believe the Jews have a scriptural claim to the land in question. Then again, you probably aren’t a theologian either so if I am wrong please just show me.

First - thanks for the post and the helpful reply. I agree with you that the “new covenant” replaces (actually fulfills) the Old covenant which is made obsolete. But the covenant referred to there is the Mosaic Law - the 613 commandments of the Torah which were nailed to the cross and replaced by our salvation through Christ. We are no longer bound by the mosaic law, but by the law of Christ (which is the 10 commandments as expanded by the beatitudes and captured poignantly in the golden rule).

The promises and covenants made between God and Israel as a people continue. When Israel accepts Yeshua/Jesus as the messiah, that will be the ultimate fulfillment of God’s covenant with Israel. But the land promises, for example,

Every time God affirmed his covenant with the children of Abraham in the Bible, he noted that the land of Israel would be a sign of that covenant (Gen 13:14-17; 17:5-8; 26:3-4; 35:10-12; 50:24; Ex 32:13; Deut 1:8).

The “land covenant” was under the Old Covenant which has been revoked. God has already fulfilled his promises to Israel and there is no other commitment with regards to the land issue. See Joshua 21:43-45, 1King8:56, Nehemiah 9:7-8).
Joshua 21

The Church has formally rejected this concept of “replacement theology” in Vatican II. **“God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues” (Vatican II declaration Nostra Aetate 4; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 839, Romans 11:29). **

This doesn’t mean “dual covenant theology” as salvation still ultimately comes through acceptance of the Messiah/Christ - but the promises made to Israel (the land) by God as an “unconditional covenant” have not been irradicated by the ushering in of the “new covenant”.

To be fair, it is possible that this covenant will be satisfied and fulfilled in the coming of the New Jerusalem (heavenly Jerusalem) - although I personally do not believe it is “either or” but “both”

Brian, what do you think “all Israel” means in Romans 11?

Great question. I believe “all Israel” stands for the day when the lost 10 tribes of Israel, who disappeared into the Gentile nations after the exile into Assyria about 500 plus years before Christ), return to God through the Messiah, together with other Jewish believers (descendants of Judah and Benjamin) and gentile believers from a multitude of nations. Thus, “Israel” maintains an ethnic definition as physical descendants of Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob, but also a broader definition of the “Israel of God” which includes all spiritual descendants of Abraham through Christ.

This is the great mystery that Paul alludes to when discussing how Israel (he is clearly discussing ethnic Israel in this context) for the most part has been hardened - but not forever, only until the “full allotment of Gentiles” comes in - then “all Israel” will be saved. The faithful remnant from Judah and Benjamin (together with the lost tribes who come back with the Gentiles with the spread of the gospel through the world.

In Christ, there is ultimately no distinction between Jew and Gentile and, yet, ethnic Israel (even in unbelief) is being used by God for his glory - this what Paul says when he says in Romans 11: "As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. 30 Just as you were once disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all."

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Bran_Stark]

The Old Covenant is now superseded, but the free gifts of God are not. I cannot see the Holy Land as anything but the eternal patrimony of the Jewish people.

 

[Robbinson]

The “land covenant” was under the Old Covenant which has been revoked. God has already fulfilled his promises to Israel and there is no other commitment with regards to the land issue. See Joshua 21:43-45, 1King8:56, Nehemiah 9:7-8).

Pwrlftr - I’m continuing to study this out, and while you are correct that Israel was given all the land in Joshua, but what about these other verses/promises of God telling us about a future regathering of Israel back to the land?

Jer 23:7-8 See also Isa 14:1; 35:10; 43:5-6; Eze 20:41-42; 34:11-13; Am 9:14-15?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts -its an important topic.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[jerome_ky]

Romans 11:28 states that is is the gifts and calling which are irrevocable. In context, the passage in Romans is dealing w/ salvation not land.

If the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable, why only salvation and not land? That’s your addition. Did Jacob spoke falsely in Genesis 48:3-4:

"And Jacob said to Joseph, “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me, and said to me, `Behold, I will make you fruitful, and multiply you, and I will make of you a company of peoples, and will give this land to your descendants after you for an everlasting possession.’”

The New Testament (New Covenant) did in fact revoke the land of Israel from the Jews since the promise of the land was under the Old Covenant which clearly has been replaced by the New Covenant (See 2Cor3:6-14 and Hebrews 8:1-13). Unless one believes in dual covenant theology I don’t see how one can still believe the Jews have a scriptural claim to the land in question. Then again, you probably aren’t a theologian either so if I am wrong please just show me.

2Cor3:6-14 doesn’t speak of the land. Neither does Hebrew 8:1-13. The Old Covenant, which it does speak of, is the law covenant made with Moses, the covenant of the Exodus and the Paschal lamb, which is superseded by Christ. It doesn’t mention the land.

As I mentioned above, the context of Romans 11:28 is about salvation. This is seemingly clear due to the remaining verses in chapter 11 speaking only of God offering the Jews salvation and not a plot of land in the Middle East.

“Plot of land in the Middle East.” Interesting way to refer to God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the land that the Hebrews took over from the Canaanites, the Promised Land, the “Holy Land,” the land that Christ trod, that contains holy places and holy relics,
for which the Crusades were fought. All just a “plot of land in the Middle East?”

The “land covenant” was under the Old Covenant which has been revoked. God has already fulfilled his promises to Israel and there is no other commitment with regards to the land issue. See Joshua 21:43-45, 1King8:56, Nehemiah 9:7-8).

Those passages only state that the Lord was faithful to keep His promises. They dont’ say the promises ended. Again, Jacob called the land an “everlasting possession.” This was the promise and hope that sustained the Jews in the Babylonian exile.

I ask anyone here to explain to me how the Jews could possibly return to Israel and be such a major subject in the eyes of the world that they are constantly in the news, that everyone has an opinion on it, without the hand of God being present. Is Jerusalem not becoming “a cup of reeling to all the peoples round about” as the Lord said in Zech. 12:2?

The whole world is against or turning against Israel. This cannot be a subject we turn our backs on. And I will say this- the Jews are the underdogs here, not the Palestinians. The Jews bought the land from Ottoman landowners, they are not occupying anything. The bedouins and landless Arabs came to work the land that the Jews were rebuilding, the land that Mark Twain famously said was so barren when he went there that his company could travel for miles and miles and not see a single soul. The Lord has blessed modern day Israel, turned a desert into an oasis. Against UNBELIEVABLE odds, Israel survives and thrives. Jesus blamed the religious leaders of His time for not seeing the obvious, the signs of the times. Israel is one big glaring obvious sign of the times.

 

[Pwrlftr]

If the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable, why only salvation and not land? That’s your addition. Did Jacob spoke falsely in Genesis 48:3-4:

"And Jacob said to Joseph, “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me, and said to me, `Behold, I will make you fruitful, and multiply you, and I will make of you a company of peoples, and will give this land to your descendants after you for an everlasting possession.’”

My point is that Romans 11 nowhere mentions any promise of land to the Jews. In context Romans 11 is discussing salvation. I haven’t added anything to the text, I am taking it in context. Perhaps you are correct and I am wrong as to whether Israel has a divine mandate for the land they possess but I don’t see how Romans 11 can be used to justify your belief.

The promise in Genesis 48:3-4 is an everlasting promise. But what does everlasting mean? Is it possible that it simply means they will have the land for a long time? We know it can’t possibly understood that they will have the land in their possession forever because we know the history of the land. The lexical evidence indicates that one of the meanings of olam/everlasting is simply of a long duration.

2Cor3:6-14 doesn’t speak of the land. Neither does Hebrew 8:1-13. The Old Covenant, which it does speak of, is the law covenant made with Moses, the covenant of the Exodus and the Paschal lamb, which is superseded by Christ. It doesn’t mention the land.

I will post more on this tomorrow.

I ask anyone here to explain to me how the Jews could possibly return to Israel and be such a major subject in the eyes of the world that they are constantly in the news, that everyone has an opinion on it, without the hand of God being present. Is Jerusalem not becoming “a cup of reeling to all the peoples round about” as the Lord said in Zech. 12:2?

We can back and forth on this for quite some time.

Do you have any evidence that the Church, at least before the 20th century, had any belief whatsoever that prophecy would be fulfilled by establishing the nation state of Israel? Or, phrased another way, can you demonstrate that the Church ever believed that the Jews have a divine mandate to the land in question?

I don’t think the Church has ever taught such a thing but am willing to be corrected if you can find the evidence.

By the way, I didn’t mean to offend you with the “plot of land” reference. My apologies.

 

[Robbinson]

The promise in Genesis 48:3-4 is an everlasting promise. But what does everlasting mean? Is it possible that it simply means they will have the land for a long time? We know it can’t possibly understood that they will have the land in their possession forever because we know the history of the land. The lexical evidence indicates that one of the meanings of olam/everlasting is simply of a long duration.

You are correct that this is one possible meaning of “olam” (long period of indefinite duration, rather than forever), and, in fact, I have subscribed to that view in other places in the Hebrew scriptures where “olam” is used to describe covenants or festival observance we believe are fulfilled in the new covenant.

However, I think the issue is a little more complicated than that. I believe the land is an “eternal” inheritance (we can put a pin, for now, in whether this is "eternal or long period of indefinite duration) but Israel’s right to “inhabit” the land is based upon and conditioned upon following God’s law. Thus the inhabiting followed by exile. I do think we need to address the many verses I noted earlier foretelling of that exile “to be followed” be a regathering to the land. . . that is what appears to be happening now, albeit spiritual awakening has not yet occurred.

Do you have any evidence that the Church, at least before the 20th century, had any belief whatsoever that prophecy would be fulfilled by establishing the nation state of Israel? Or, phrased another way, can you demonstrate that the Church ever believed that the Jews have a divine mandate to the land in question?

I don’t think the Church has ever taught such a thing but am willing to be corrected if you can find the evidence.

No - I’m not aware of that teaching - although will be exploring this further now. However, by the same token, I don’t believe there has been a formal contrary teaching and until 1948, when the state of Israel was re-created, the issue would not have been front and center for consideration by the Church.

Thanks for the insights and looking forward to hearing from others. This is a timely and significant topic and likely to be a subject of some discussion given recent events (as demonstrated by the OP).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[jerome_ky]

Do you have any evidence that the Church, at least before the 20th century, had any belief whatsoever that prophecy would be fulfilled by establishing the nation state of Israel? Or, phrased another way, can you demonstrate that the Church ever believed that the Jews have a divine mandate to the land in question?

I don’t think the Church has ever taught such a thing but am willing to be corrected if you can find the evidence.

By the way, I didn’t mean to offend you with the “plot of land” reference. My apologies.

First, let me say “thank you” and acknowledge your apology.

Second, I think I see what you are saying. You are (correct me if I mischaracterize your answers) relying entirely on the teaching of the Church, which is the “full deposit of faith.” Can something happen that the Church has not foreseen?

Well, I would answer, yes, of course. The Moslem conquest and the response of the Crusades are perfect examples. The current abuse scandals are another. The Church was, in both cases, reactive. She didn’t foresee it, at least not specifically.

I think the return of the Jews to Israel is another case. There are Protestants who claim that certain theologians concluded in the 19th century that the Jews had to return to the land. Here’s the reason, and I think it’s relevant. Jesus answered the question, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age? {Mt. 24:3]” by teaching this:

"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come.
"So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
“then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains…”

Compare St. Paul’s teaching in II Thes 2:

“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren,
not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition,
who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”

Speaking of the coming of the “day of the Lord,” Paul says it won’t happen until the son of perdition “takes his seat in the temple of God…” Well, how can that occur when the temple was destroyed in 70 a.d. This is why a lot of “end times” literature talks about the rebuilding of the temple.

I think there are some things that we as human beings simply must accept as being under God’s sovereignty. God and the Jews have their own relationship. As St Paul said “Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren…” referring to that very relationship.

Let’s not forget that Jesus was, and is, the King of the Jews. Christians are grafted in, but the Jews are the natural branches.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The statements by Monsignor Bustros regarding Israel, saying the Jews are not the chosen people and can’t “use” Scripture to justify “occupation” is really causing me a quandary. I know the Jews are not worshiping God correctly since they continue to reject Jesus. But to basically say that Jesus nullified the promises of God to the Jews is to ignore the Bible. Romans 9 says:

“For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.
They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises;
to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.”

These statements by this Monsignor are being used by Jews and Protestants to show that the Catholic Church is at best appeasing Islam, at worst an enemy of Israel. I don’t believe they qualtify as an official statement from the Vatican, but what is the position of the Church on Israel, and is it possible the Vatican will distance itself at some point from these statements?

If one wants to cite a biblical mandate then technically the Levant belongs to all of Abraham’s offspring, not just those from the line of Jacob (Gn 12:7; Gn 15:18). Abraham had eight sons, as I recall.

Also, the modern state of Israel is a political, not a religious entity–it is not the equivalent of Judaism, the Jewish people, or the ancient Israelites. Even the ultra-orthodox Jews who live in Israel now reject the modern state of Israel and the Zionist movement as religiously illegitimate, so why should the Catholic Church not be able to criticize the state of Israel if the critiques are valid?

 

[jerome_ky]

If one wants to cite a biblical mandate then technically the Levant belongs to all of Abraham’s offspring, not just those from the line of Jacob (Gn 12:7; Gn 15:18). Abraham had eight sons, as I recall.

Genesis 50:24:

And Joseph said to his brothers, “I am about to die; but God will visit you, and bring you up out of this land to the land which he swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.”

Romans 9:6-8:

"…not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.”

Also, the modern state of Israel is a political, not a religious entity–it is not the equivalent of Judaism, the Jewish people, or the ancient Israelites. Even the ultra-orthodox Jews who live in Israel now reject the modern state of Israel and the Zionist movement as religiously illegitimate, so why should the Catholic Church not be able to criticize the state of Israel if the critiques are valid?

It’s not religion being discussed. It is the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Religiously, the Jews persist in error, because they continue to reject Christ. I don’t know what “ultra-orthodox Jews” are living in Israel but rejecting Israel, that doesn’t really make sense, but this has nothing to do with religious Jews. Jews as a people have remained distinct for 2000 years. God promised He would gather His people from dispersion from all the nations of the world in the last days, as a sign to the world. Being blind to that is like being blind to Christ when He preached in Judea, it’s missing what is right in front of your eyes.

To throw the question open, has the Church ever come out with a dogma stating that the return of the Jews to Israel is NOT the hand of God, or is it still in the realm of speculation and debate? Religiously, I wouldn’t expect the Pope to throw in his lot with the Jews, but that’s different. When Jews criticize Pope Benedict for moving forward toward canonizing Pope Pius XII, my response is they should mind their own religious business. But God still has a purpose for the Jews, or else, again, why would both Jesus and Paul have spoken of His coming as being heralded by a sign in the temple?

 

[Little_Jim]

Wow! I have spent an hour reading and digesting the posts on this subject. I have an evangelical friend who loves to send me articles that appear to show the Church’s inconsistency, bigotry, ect and I patiently try to answer her in a Christian manner. She recently sent me an article from a evangelical Jew named Joel Rosenburg who hosts the “Joshua Fund” website. The article sent on this subject was titled “Vatican’s painful statement on Israel”. The title itself misleads because the Vatican was not speaking here, it was simply the conclusion of a synod. Anyway, I had always believed that the new covenant in Christ had fulfilled the covenant with Abraham. That all of mankind was now “God’s chosen”. After reading this forum I’m still not sure what I should believe. There are very good points made on both sides of this argument and I think how we view Israel and the Jews, given the situation in the Middle East today is of extreme importance! HELP!!!

 

[Robbinson]

Wow! I have spent an hour reading and digesting the posts on this subject. I have an evangelical friend who loves to send me articles that appear to show the Church’s inconsistency, bigotry, ect and I patiently try to answer her in a Christian manner. She recently sent me an article from a evangelical Jew named Joel Rosenburg who hosts the “Joshua Fund” website. The article sent on this subject was titled “Vatican’s painful statement on Israel”. The title itself misleads because the Vatican was not speaking here, it was simply the conclusion of a synod. Anyway, I had always believed that the new covenant in Christ had fulfilled the covenant with Abraham. That all of mankind was now “God’s chosen”. After reading this forum I’m still not sure what I should believe. There are very good points made on both sides of this argument and I think how we view Israel and the Jews, given the situation in the Middle East today is of extreme importance! HELP!!!

I know you you mean - we should all pray about it. My personal perspective continues to evolve on this important issue. I believe that its “both”. God had, and has, a special calling to ethnic Israel. Before Christ it was to preserve His law, to separte themselves from Gentiles to show the world the distinction between Holy and UnHoly and to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah through the words of the Prophets. After Christ, I believe their calling continues, in part to show God’s glory when in the end times Israel as a collective “calls on the name of the Lord.”

On the other hand, I believe that spiritually, we are told in the NT that “not all Israel” and that Gentile believers are “grafted” into the promises of Israel (Romans) and that all believers form the Israel of God (Galations). Thus, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ and I believe may include the land covenants. So, the land covenants will be enjoyed by “Israel” (but this includes true Israel - all believing Jews and Gentiles). This is much like “Ruth” (a Gentile) who became part of “Israel” making her mother-in laws people, her people. So it is with those Gentile believers grafted into Israel. I recognize that those with a dispensationalist perspective view the “church” and “israel” as separate with the covenants to “Israel” remaining unique to ethinic Israel. As a Jewish believer I “see that”, but think the scriptures more powerfully suggest a grafting of non-Israelite believers “into Israel” rather than the creation of a separate body of believers.

After the full alotment of Gentiles comes in, “all Israel will be saved” (this is the return of the lost 10 tribes who disappeared into the Gentile nations) who will be recovered, with Judah and Benjamin (today’s Jews) together with Gentile believers in the end times.

So - Yes, God’s calling of Israel continues, both ethinic and spiritual, and God’s covenant’s will be fulfilled.

As to the role of Israel - the signs are significant and its easy to imagine (and hard not to imagine) that the existance of Israel as a people, and now as a “nation” is supernatural in large part. I support Israel for a number of reasons (political and religious), but that is different than suggesting that Israel should not be accountable (like all of us). It is a country fighting for survival - I think if we stepped back and envisioned Washington as Jerusalem, and were dealing with the threats and attacks, we might react in the same way that Israel reacts. That said, we need to understand and sympathize and support any individuals who oppressed, like the palestinian community. Its a difficult balance (but needs balance).

Its a mystery of faith. We should pray for peace and for the fulfillment of God’s plans (whatever they may be).

Blessings,

Brian