Protestant view of Israel.

[CopticChristian]

Because this is an open internet forum. You’re not in your inbox privately messaging to one another.

Am I really answering this question…
He’s certainly not unable to, but maybe (I sense) meanwhile unwilling to answer you?

Well, then you certainly are a proponent of clarity in communication.

 

[joe371]

Hey Everyone,
I’ve been curious as to why a lot* of Protestants seem to be really into the country/people of Israel. I’m assuming this is because they are (they were?) the chosen people.

Can anyone explain why they think of them as so important now? I mean, aren’t Catholics really the continuation of the chosen people?

Thanks!

*maybe it’s just the protestants i know that think this way.

Some of my family members are evangelical, and they believe that God’s temple (and animal sacrifices) will be instituted once again by Jesus. I am not sure why…Jesus is the Temple as per scripture. It seems reasonable to conclude that the following would be tantamount to the Jewish people finally accepting Jesus as the Messiah, and His Church of which Jesus is the Head and Savior:

“After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!” Romans

 

[luthier93]

Well you have to understand that the only people who can understand and interpret the Jewish scriptures are those without a full knowledge of Hebrew, or Judaism or works by Jewish Rabbinical scholars, who use translations, non Jewish commentaries and interpolate non Jewish ideas. Now as for the nation of Israel and its being the driving force of world redemption (an idea which you no doubt do not accept) and presuming you are unable to read the works in Hebrew, you might start with HaRav Avraham Yitzhak HaCohen Kook “Lights on Orot series” War and Peace".

The UN vote of course did not establish the State of Israel. Its only operative effect was to end the British occupation at a much earlier date and without the need for further fighting against the British.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand…you seem to say that those who know Hebrew can’t understand the Jewish Scriptures. I don’t think you mean that.
Also, I definitely believe that Israel is the driving force of world redemption (or will be) for God says they will be as his priests to the nations. And I disagree with Coptic that the Israel of today is not that of the Bible. God definitely used the Un vote and other diplomatic methods to bring them back, just as he did with Cyrus.

 

[luthier93]

Some of my family members are evangelical, and they believe that God’s temple (and animal sacrifices) will be instituted once again by Jesus. I am not sure why…Jesus is the Temple as per scripture. It seems reasonable to conclude that the following would be tantamount to the Jewish people finally accepting Jesus as the Messiah, and His Church of which Jesus is the Head and Savior:

“After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!” Romans

Yes, I believe that may be the case also. We’ll wait and see, but as Paul says that the sacrifices were only an outward sign anyway, there must be reason for them being instituted. Therefore, in a similar to that in which we still celebrate the festivals (Passover, etc.) as a remembrance, it follows that Jesus may institute the sacrifices again. Especially as there seem to be a large amount of references to sacrifices in end-times prophecy.

 

[luthier93]

Paul tells you in Romans 1 why he is writing as follows:
and he completes that thought at the end of the letter again…
His purpose is to bring about “the obedience of Faith”
Yes, he is writing to Christians, however to explain that you do not need to belong to the Old Covenant through Circumcision to be Christian or putting it another way, you don’t have to be a Jewish Christian to be truly Christian…
In Romans 3 he takes the Jewish Christians to task…and I challenge you, knowing how logical Paul is…when he says “first of all”…when does he conclude this dialogue to the Jews trying to force Circumcision and the Old Covenant on new Christians?
I will give you a hint…it is after Roman’s 10:9 that is addressed to the Jewish Christians trying to impose Cirucumcision and the Old Covenant.
Many Protestants do not see this “first” expecting as you might, secondly then thirdly…why would he say “first”…
Let me know how you do…

Many people misinterpret Paul today, as they did even at the time of his life (cf. 1 Peter).
What it’s important to note here, and may or not be entirely clear depending on translations, is the fact that Paul was not calling out Jewish Christians for trying to impose Circumcision.
This may seem shocking to say that. However, he was calling out those who were trying to impose circumcision as means of salvation…and equal to the “obedience of faith” as your translation puts it.
Now…that does not mean one has to be Jewish Christian or circumcised to be saved. On the contrary. Faith is what produces salvation. But circumcision is not therefore bad because it does not produce salvation.

 

[luthier93]

You probably know little of Aquinas, whose expertise was in knowing the opposition argument better than their own knowledge of their argument. You will find this same style of thinking in Paul and Jesus. Jesus knew what someone was thinking as He answered their questions, Paul learned it from Jesus, Aquinas learned it from Paul…
and all the Protestants that are now Catholic, like Scott Hahn teach and supplement Protestant thinking and I learned it as well.
What else do you want to know?

I actually know a lot about Aquinas, if you mean St. Thomas of Aquinas. However he lived in the 13th century and did not know Paul firsthand.
However, it’s a false statement to say Pau and Jesus knew more of their opponents’ arguments then their own. As Paul says, “Be prepared to give an answer for what you believe.” They knew the opponent’s arguments, but they knew theirs better! You?
What I’m trying to point out (and you don’t seem to get it) is that you are relying on fallible human teaching (whether Aquinas or Hahn or anyone else) for your arguments instead of the Bible. It wouldn’t be false to say that even that are interpretations of their positions, inasmuch as would be an understanding of the Bible. But without the foundation of the Bible, one cannot stand on the teaching of men.

 

[joe371]

Yes, I believe that may be the case also. We’ll wait and see, but as Paul says that the sacrifices were only an outward sign anyway, there must be reason for them being instituted. Therefore, in a similar to that in which we still celebrate the festivals (Passover, etc.) as a remembrance, it follows that Jesus may institute the sacrifices again. Especially as there seem to be a large amount of references to sacrifices in end-times prophecy.

Institute the sacrifice of animals, or did I misunderstand?

 

[CopticChristian]

Many people misinterpret Paul today, as they did even at the time of his life (cf. 1 Peter).
What it’s important to note here, and may or not be entirely clear depending on translations, is the fact that Paul was not calling out Jewish Christians for trying to impose Circumcision.
This may seem shocking to say that. However, he was calling out those who were trying to impose circumcision as means of salvation…and equal to the “obedience of faith” as your translation puts it.
Now…that does not mean one has to be Jewish Christian or circumcised to be saved. On the contrary. Faith is what produces salvation. But circumcision is not therefore bad because it does not produce salvation.

For the Jew at the time it was spoken, believed that Circumcision was necessary and Paul points out that the need for putting someone into the Old Covenant through Circumcision was not necessary…and in fact…

if you read Romans 2 you will see Paul saying things like

doing, practice, doing, deeds and then suddenly transitions into

speaking of Circumcision no less than 7 times…

29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

he ends Romans 2 as above and then transitions into the problems that the Jews had by attempting to force Circumcision on new Christians…and transitions with this…

1Then what advantage has the Jew?

He makes the point that while the Jews were putting their Faith in their Faith through Abraham, Paul points out that Abraham had Faith as a gift prior to Circumcision. He then points out that they are not children of Abraham, rather chidlren of Adam. He points out that in Baptism they are made Christian and united with Christ and then emphasizes that the Old Covenant through Circumcision is like a spouse dead, no longer having any authority so that Christians are not bound by the Old Covenant through Circumcision rather through Baptism are united like a spouse to Christ.

Now he then in Romans 9 quotes Moses, Hosea, Isaih and by the time he gets to Romans 10:9 he is telling the Jews that they failed to listen to Moses too…and since he is writing to Christians noting that Jewish Christians and Greek Christians all have the same Faith, no different and do not need circumcision.

 

[CopticChristian]

I actually know a lot about Aquinas, if you mean St. Thomas of Aquinas. However he lived in the 13th century and did not know Paul firsthand.
However, it’s a false statement to say Pau and Jesus knew more of their opponents’ arguments then their own. As Paul says, “Be prepared to give an answer for what you believe.” They knew the opponent’s arguments, but they knew theirs better! You?
What I’m trying to point out (and you don’t seem to get it) is that you are relying on fallible human teaching (whether Aquinas or Hahn or anyone else) for your arguments instead of the Bible. It wouldn’t be false to say that even that are interpretations of their positions, inasmuch as would be an understanding of the Bible. But without the foundation of the Bible, one cannot stand on the teaching of men.

and I would add you are a person in the year 2013 that are as fallible as any Protestant I have ever known…what authority do you have to interpret better than Hahn, Aquinas or anyone else?

 

[joe371]

What I’m trying to point out (and you don’t seem to get it) is that you are relying on fallible human teaching (whether Aquinas or Hahn or anyone else) for your arguments instead of the Bible.

Who should he be relying on? If you say the bible, then I ask again: who should he be relying on, in terms discerning the truth? After all, everyone is fallible?

 

[chosen_people]

I’m sorry, I don’t understand…you seem to say that those who know Hebrew can’t understand the Jewish Scriptures. I don’t think you mean that.
Also, I definitely believe that Israel is the driving force of world redemption (or will be) for God says they will be as his priests to the nations. And I disagree with Coptic that the Israel of today is not that of the Bible. God definitely used the Un vote and other diplomatic methods to bring them back, just as he did with Cyrus.

Apparently I didn’t understand your post and apparently you didn’t understand mine. I was being facetious. Your comments and support are most welcome.

I frequently have commented on the idelible link between God, Jews and history. Here is an example:

The expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 was the impetus for the voyages of Columbus and the New World. This “discovery” of the New World will lead to the founding of the Colonies in America. The Colonists will rebel against Britain and France will aid the Colonists in their rebellion against the British. As a result of the rebellion, the United States of America will come into being. This French aid to the rebellion will cause increased taxation and hardship for the French people who will in turn rebel against the French King bringing Napoleon to power. Napoleon will bring about the emancipation of the Jews and their becoming citizens in the countries in which they reside and the beginning of equal rights. This process will lead to the creation of modern Zionism and eventually to re-independence of the Jewish people in their eternal homeland. The first country to immediately recognize Israel and which will later become an essential ally of Israel will be the United States.

 

[CopticChristian]

Apparently I didn’t understand your post and apparently you didn’t understand mine. I was being facetious. Your comments and support are most welcome.

I frequently have commented on the idelible link between God, Jews and history. Here is an example:

The expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 was the impetus for the voyages of Columbus and the New World. This “discovery” of the New World will lead to the founding of the Colonies in America. The Colonists will rebel against Britain and France will aid the Colonists in their rebellion against the British. As a result of the rebellion, the United States of America will come into being. This French aid to the rebellion will cause increased taxation and hardship for the French people who will in turn rebel against the French King bringing Napoleon to power. Napoleon will bring about the emancipation of the Jews and their becoming citizens in the countries in which they reside and the beginning of equal rights. This process will lead to the creation of modern Zionism and eventually to re-independence of the Jewish people in their eternal homeland. The first country to immediately recognize Israel and which will later become an essential ally of Israel will be the United States.

I am sad that the Jews lost their homeland. Are we now going to return the USA to the american indian and every other ethnic group that lost their homeland.

There are as I understand it Aztecs, Mayans still around in America. Do they not deserve to have their own homeland too?

Let us look at Ireland and the take over by the British. Do you feel as strongly about what the British have done and are doing to Ireland?

 

[CopticChristian]

So, has Northern Ireland been returned to full Irish rule as it was before the British invaded?

 

[luthier93]

Institute the sacrifice of animals, or did I misunderstand?

You are correct, that is what I meant. I’m not saying it will happen, but that there seems to be some evidence based on a contextual reading of prophecy that it might.

 

[luthier93]

For the Jew at the time it was spoken, believed that Circumcision was necessary and Paul points out that the need for putting someone into the Old Covenant through Circumcision was not necessary

No, it wasn’t the Jews who believed that circumcision was necessary.
Paul was a Jew, and obviously he didn’t feel it was necessary for salvation.
In fact, the original Jewish Christians were divided on the circumcision requirement (Acts 15) and the Jerusalem council made a final decision regarding what was necessary. Perhaps you don’t understand this chapter so well, so I’ll explain. I don’t believe that anyone in the Jewish Christian community thought circumcision was necessary FOR SALVATION. But they thought that once a Gentile was saved through faith, they had to obey the entire Mosaic Law (when one was circumcised, they were putting themselves in subjection to the entire law). For a new Gentile believer, this would be a hard load, the opposite of what Jesus said his burden was. So, the council decided to limit the requirements for a new believer to those mentioned in Acts 15, which were the points that would allow them to fellowship with the circumcised Jews in Christ. Since that was decided after Jesus (on the authority of the Apostles) it stands to reason that it should still apply today. Moreover, it was decided with the assumption that the new believers would “learn as they went” about the Torah (without which, it is difficult to understand the New Covenant) by going to synagogue.
But it’s wrong to say that the Jews thought circumcision was necessary for salvation. They didn’t, for a Gentile.

if you read Romans 2 you will see Paul saying things like
doing, practice, doing, deeds and then suddenly transitions into
speaking of Circumcision no less than 7 times…
he ends Romans 2 as above and then transitions into the problems that the Jews had by attempting to force Circumcision on new Christians…and transitions with this…
He makes the point that while the Jews were putting their Faith in their Faith through Abraham, Paul points out that Abraham had Faith as a gift prior to Circumcision. He then points out that they are not children of Abraham, rather chidlren of Adam. He points out that in Baptism they are made Christian and united with Christ and then emphasizes that the Old Covenant through Circumcision is like a spouse dead, no longer having any authority so that Christians are not bound by the Old Covenant through Circumcision rather through Baptism are united like a spouse to Christ.

I’d like you understand this: if one is circumcised, they are agreeing to be bound by the law of Moses. That applies to you. Paul was emphasizing (in light of the controversy which still seemed to be going on, cf. Acts 15) that Gentile (Roman) believers did not need to follow the Mosaic Law to be saved; therefore, they should become circumcised and put themselves under that Law.

Now he then in Romans 9 quotes Moses, Hosea, Isaih and by the time he gets to Romans 10:9 he is telling the Jews that they failed to listen to Moses too…and since he is writing to Christians noting that Jewish Christians and Greek Christians all have the same Faith, no different and do not need circumcision.

Correct. We have no disagreement here. However, God wants his people to be holy. His standard of holiness is outlined in the Torah. The sign of obedience to the Torah is circumcision. Just because it is not necessary does not mean it is bad; Paul does say that the Jew has a benefit.

 

[luthier93]

and I would add you are a person in the year 2013 that are as fallible as any Protestant I have ever known…what authority do you have to interpret better than Hahn, Aquinas or anyone else?

I’m not interested in personal conversations on this forum. We can discuss it privately.
However, the issue is that any time anyone discusses anyone else’s teaching without directly quoting, it is an interpretation of the first person’s words.
You are doing an interpretation of an interpretation (Hahn) of an interpretation (Aquinas), even possibly of another interpretation (Paul, depending on what subject) of Jesus’ teaching. That’s a dangerous place to be since there is a lot of room for error.
I have no more nor less authority to interpret Scripture than Aquinas or Hahn, provided they are/were sincere believers. That also applies to you.

 

[luthier93]

I am sad that the Jews lost their homeland. Are we now going to return the USA to the american indian and every other ethnic group that lost their homeland.

There are as I understand it Aztecs, Mayans still around in America. Do they not deserve to have their own homeland too?

Let us look at Ireland and the take over by the British. Do you feel as strongly about what the British have done and are doing to Ireland?

1. The Mayans and Aztecs were not God’s chosen people
2. The Mayans and Aztecs were not expressly told they would return to the promised land
3. Israel is, and was.

 

[luthier93]

Apparently I didn’t understand your post and apparently you didn’t understand mine. I was being facetious. Your comments and support are most welcome.

I frequently have commented on the idelible link between God, Jews and history. Here is an example:

The expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 was the impetus for the voyages of Columbus and the New World. This “discovery” of the New World will lead to the founding of the Colonies in America. The Colonists will rebel against Britain and France will aid the Colonists in their rebellion against the British. As a result of the rebellion, the United States of America will come into being. This French aid to the rebellion will cause increased taxation and hardship for the French people who will in turn rebel against the French King bringing Napoleon to power. Napoleon will bring about the emancipation of the Jews and their becoming citizens in the countries in which they reside and the beginning of equal rights. This process will lead to the creation of modern Zionism and eventually to re-independence of the Jewish people in their eternal homeland. The first country to immediately recognize Israel and which will later become an essential ally of Israel will be the United States.

I’m glad we now are on the same page. Unfortunately text doesn’t translate tones or moods also.

 

[Forkfoot]

I suspect it’s got more to do with politics than anything else. The biggest movers and shakers of the evangelical world have always been deeply entrenched in the U.S. political body, and it’s strategically advantageous for the States to have a nuclear-armed ally in the Middle East.

 

[CopticChristian]

No, it wasn’t the Jews who believed that circumcision was necessary.
Paul was a Jew, and obviously he didn’t feel it was necessary for salvation.
In fact, the original Jewish Christians were divided on the circumcision requirement (Acts 15) and the Jerusalem council made a final decision regarding what was necessary. Perhaps you don’t understand this chapter so well, so I’ll explain. I don’t believe that anyone in the Jewish Christian community thought circumcision was necessary FOR SALVATION. But they thought that once a Gentile was saved through faith, they had to obey the entire Mosaic Law (when one was circumcised, they were putting themselves in subjection to the entire law). For a new Gentile believer, this would be a hard load, the opposite of what Jesus said his burden was. So, the council decided to limit the requirements for a new believer to those mentioned in Acts 15, which were the points that would allow them to fellowship with the circumcised Jews in Christ. Since that was decided after Jesus (on the authority of the Apostles) it stands to reason that it should still apply today. Moreover, it was decided with the assumption that the new believers would “learn as they went” about the Torah (without which, it is difficult to understand the New Covenant) by going to synagogue.
But it’s wrong to say that the Jews thought circumcision was necessary for salvation. They didn’t, for a Gentile.

I’d like you understand this: if one is circumcised, they are agreeing to be bound by the law of Moses. That applies to you. Paul was emphasizing (in light of the controversy which still seemed to be going on, cf. Acts 15) that Gentile (Roman) believers did not need to follow the Mosaic Law to be saved; therefore, they should become circumcised and put themselves under that Law.

Correct. We have no disagreement here. However, God wants his people to be holy. His standard of holiness is outlined in the Torah. The sign of obedience to the Torah is circumcision. Just because it is not necessary does not mean it is bad; Paul does say that the Jew has a benefit.

We disagree on the letter to the Romans, repeated in the letter to the Galatians and a constant theme in many of Paul’s writings including Corinthians that you missed. You may not be aware that the problem of Jews trying to Judaize Christians was a constant theme in time and John Chrysostom wrote about this as well “Judaizing Christians”…

So, it appears that your fallible interpretation differs from mine and I belive you are wrong.