The Church and Israel

  • Thread starter Thread starter Contrabass101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Contrabass101

Guest
This question has been bugging me for years, but now I finally seem to be able to connect some of the dots. So I’d like to hear if my thoughts are close to how the Church views its relationship with the Jews. I have a sense, that I lack understanding of Christ’s role, which makes it seem that I put a rather too great emphasis on Mary. I should like to balance it with a more Christological perspective, but can’t seem to get my head around it.

God is a Covenant God; he establishes family-bonds with mankind. God made his covenant first with Adam, invested him as high priest of Creation, but Adam fell from grace. Then later on, God establishes a Covenant with Noah and his decendants. This is a universal covenant, since all are the decendants of him.

Then later God chose Abraham from among Noahs children as the father of his people (or “family”, “kin” as the Hebrew word could also mean). Abraham was not chosen for his own sake, but for the benefit of all men, that they may bless themselves in his seed. Then Isach was chosen from Abrahams two sons, and at last Jacob/Israel from Isachs two sons. The twelve sons of Israel are the fathers of the Israelites.

Still, Israel being the chosen people, are not chosen for their own sake, but to be a “light to the peoples”, they are chosen not that everyone else shall be damned, but that everyone else (if possible) shall be saved. They are not chosen in an exclusive way, but as an instrument of bringing God’s salvation to the world. They are his spearhead into this world.

With all their faults and errors, God’s covenant with them is still strong, through the centuries, and his promises last. As Scott Hahn says, you cannot break a covenant - the covenant breaks you. Just like you cannot break the Law of Gravity - if in contempt for it you try to defy it by jumping of a scy-scraper, the Law is unaltered, while you are not.

Now, the promises are continually narrowed down, first to Juda, then to David, Solomon and in the end to a young Jewess who receives words from an angel, that she is to bear the Son of God and of David, the Seed of the Woman and of Abraham. In this Most Blessed Virgin and her Son then, the Covenant comes to its fulfillment.

This then, is the time when all nations shall be blessed in Abrahams’ Son, and the boundaries of spiritual Israel which were earlier closed to the gentiles is opened. Jesus makes his covenant first with Jews (his disciples - it also seems that the Church was a Jewish thing untill year 50) perhaps to emphasize that salvation comes from the Jews and that his covenant is a continuation of the Jewish covenant. It is, however, opened up to the gentiles.

Some branches were thus grafted into the original tree (at baptism), they become spiritual Israel - but not just in a vague, figurative “spiritual” sense. No, in the flesh and blood sense of a family. We are children of Mary, as Jesus tells John from the Cross: Behold your mother. She is the woman in the sky, that Revelation shows us, who (besides being herself) typifies both Israel and the Church. Through her we become the children of Israel. A Jew is someone who is born of a Jewish woman.

(This is where I feel that my emphasis on Mary is not as it should be accompanied by an emphasis on Christ - he is, according to himself, the Vine itself. But all that is not quite clear to me, so if someone can explain it more fully, I’d be grateful.)

The Covenant with the Jews has not been broken, but the majority of Jews broke themselves on it by disobedience. Indeed, whenever Israel sins they are attacked by enemies or led into exile to chastice them - what sin can they have committed that caused them to be exiled for 1900 years, the longest period of exile ever (and they still don’t have a temple)? If it was not rejecting and killing the Messiah, what then? I do not, of course, imply that God hates the Jews - on the contrary - Israel is chastened because God loves them. And it does seem quite a coincidence, that not a generation after killing Christ, their temple is destroyed, and they have been living away from Israel for almost two millenia. Perhaps they overlooked the new Macchabeus because he didn’t look like the old ones…

So the Jews do in a sense still have the Covenant of Abraham, but by rejecting Christ, they break themselves off of the vine. They have the covenant, like a fallen-away Christian still has his baptism, but it is not resulting in the living communion with God, that it was supposed to.

Anyhow, the stem of the vine is still Jewish, it is the Blessed Virgin and her Son. And still, some of the branches are natural - the apostles, the first church in Jerusalem and even today there is a minority of Messianic Jews. The situation is, that most Christians are gentiles, but that doesn’t change the stem.

The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed (Christ) that is sown in the ground (Mary) - it is perhaps smaller than all other seeds, and it is completely Jewish. It grows up, and the birds (Gentiles) make nests in it.

Indeed, I suppose the purpose of choosing Israel as Covenant Family *was *that all nations should eventually be grafted in. However, the original Israel has maintained its tradition of stoning the prophets and the grafting in of the gentiles happened to coincide with the apostasy of the Jews. That is why Paul warns us not to boast that branches were broken off, that we might be grafted in (which would be replacement theology); they were broken off because of disobedience. And we, too, might be broken off if we are not on guard. And of course the gardener wishes nothing more dearly than to one day graft back in the original branches. And what God wants should be what his people wants.

Please point out any heretic or weak points in this… I am trying hard to get this down in my head.
  • CB
 
This question has been bugging me for years, but now I finally seem to be able to connect some of the dots. So I’d like to hear if my thoughts are close to how the Church views its relationship with the Jews.

Please point out any heretic or weak points in this… I am trying hard to get this down in my head.- CB
I’m not qualified to judge whether anything is heretical - since you are just sharing your thoughts, not attempting to establish or define doctrine, I don’t think you need worry about that!

My reaction is that your assessment makes the same error as others of its nature from non-Jewish sources. It misunderstands the Jewish requirements for Messiahship.

According to Jewsih belief, one becomes the Messiah by bringing about and leading the entire world - not just Jews but also God-fearing Gentiles - into the Messianic Age promised to Abraham - the Age of world peace, of the ultimate triumph of good over evil, and of the deliverance of the Jews from earthly bondage.

There are MANY descriptions of the Messianic Age in the OT - here is a typical one from Isaiah:
You will see Jerusalem, a peaceful settlement, a tent that stays put; its stakes will never be pulled up; none of its ropes will snap in two. Instead the Lord will rule there as our mighty king. Rivers and wide streams will flow through it; no war galley will enter; no large ships will sail through. For the Lord, our ruler, the Lord, our commander, the Lord, our king – he will deliver us…No resident of Zion will say, “I am ill”; the people who live there will have all their sins forgiven.(Is. 33:20ff)
Anyone familiar with the situation in the Middle East knows that that time has not arrived.

In Judaism, one does not become the Messiah by claiming to be, nor by working miracles, nor by promising to establish the Messianic Age at some unspecified time in the future. In other words, Jews are not required to accept anyone as the Messiah in advance. No Messianic Age, no Messiah.

Jesus promised to return QUICKLY - within the lifetime of at least some of His contemporaries. He even told His aposltles that they would not have time to evangleize all of the towns in the area before His return, and Paul also warns his readers, “There is not much time left…for this world, as we know it, will not last much longer.(1 Cor 7:29/31)”

This is the reason for the number of Jewish proto-Christians. They were faithfully awaiting His imminent return. When that did not occur, and generation followed generation, Christianity became less and less Jewish and more and more Gentile, as the Gentiles had no such expectations and embraced Christ as a different kind of Messiah - one who saves by His teachings and by the example of His life.

Still, the unfulfilled promise of an imminent return remains one of the most mystifying inconsistancies in Christianity. As a Christian, I believe that Christ will eventually return, the Messianic Age will be established, and the Jews will accept Him as the undisputed Messiah.

But I am not holding my breath until that occurs, and I don’t imagine that you are either.
 
This question has been bugging me for years, but now I finally seem to be able to connect some of the dots. So I’d like to hear if my thoughts are close to how the Church views its relationship with the Jews. I have a sense, that I lack understanding of Christ’s role, which makes it seem that I put a rather too great emphasis on Mary. I should like to balance it with a more Christological perspective, but can’t seem to get my head around it.

God is a Covenant God; he establishes family-bonds with mankind. God made his covenant first with Adam, invested him as high priest of Creation, but Adam fell from grace. Then later on, God establishes a Covenant with Noah and his decendants. This is a universal covenant, since all are the decendants of him.

Then later God chose Abraham from among Noahs children as the father of his people (or “family”, “kin” as the Hebrew word could also mean). Abraham was not chosen for his own sake, but for the benefit of all men, that they may bless themselves in his seed. Then Isach was chosen from Abrahams two sons, and at last Jacob/Israel from Isachs two sons. The twelve sons of Israel are the fathers of the Israelites.

Still, Israel being the chosen people, are not chosen for their own sake, but to be a “light to the peoples”, they are chosen not that everyone else shall be damned, but that everyone else (if possible) shall be saved. They are not chosen in an exclusive way, but as an instrument of bringing God’s salvation to the world. They are his spearhead into this world.

With all their faults and errors, God’s covenant with them is still strong, through the centuries, and his promises last. As Scott Hahn says, you cannot break a covenant - the covenant breaks you. Just like you cannot break the Law of Gravity - if in contempt for it you try to defy it by jumping of a scy-scraper, the Law is unaltered, while you are not.

Now, the promises are continually narrowed down, first to Juda, then to David, Solomon and in the end to a young Jewess who receives words from an angel, that she is to bear the Son of God and of David, the Seed of the Woman and of Abraham. In this Most Blessed Virgin and her Son then, the Covenant comes to its fulfillment.

This then, is the time when all nations shall be blessed in Abrahams’ Son, and the boundaries of spiritual Israel which were earlier closed to the gentiles is opened. Jesus makes his covenant first with Jews (his disciples - it also seems that the Church was a Jewish thing untill year 50) perhaps to emphasize that salvation comes from the Jews and that his covenant is a continuation of the Jewish covenant. It is, however, opened up to the gentiles.

Some branches were thus grafted into the original tree (at baptism), they become spiritual Israel - but not just in a vague, figurative “spiritual” sense. No, in the flesh and blood sense of a family. We are children of Mary, as Jesus tells John from the Cross: Behold your mother. She is the woman in the sky, that Revelation shows us, who (besides being herself) typifies both Israel and the Church. Through her we become the children of Israel. A Jew is someone who is born of a Jewish woman.

(This is where I feel that my emphasis on Mary is not as it should be accompanied by an emphasis on Christ - he is, according to himself, the Vine itself. But all that is not quite clear to me, so if someone can explain it more fully, I’d be grateful.)

The Covenant with the Jews has not been broken, but the majority of Jews broke themselves on it by disobedience. Indeed, whenever Israel sins they are attacked by enemies or led into exile to chastice them - what sin can they have committed that caused them to be exiled for 1900 years, the longest period of exile ever (and they still don’t have a temple)? If it was not rejecting and killing the Messiah, what then? I do not, of course, imply that God hates the Jews - on the contrary - Israel is chastened because God loves them. And it does seem quite a coincidence, that not a generation after killing Christ, their temple is destroyed, and they have been living away from Israel for almost two millenia. Perhaps they overlooked the new Macchabeus because he didn’t look like the old ones…

So the Jews do in a sense still have the Covenant of Abraham, but by rejecting Christ, they break themselves off of the vine. They have the covenant, like a fallen-away Christian still has his baptism, but it is not resulting in the living communion with God, that it was supposed to.

Anyhow, the stem of the vine is still Jewish, it is the Blessed Virgin and her Son. And still, some of the branches are natural - the apostles, the first church in Jerusalem and even today there is a minority of Messianic Jews. The situation is, that most Christians are gentiles, but that doesn’t change the stem.

The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed (Christ) that is sown in the ground (Mary) - it is perhaps smaller than all other seeds, and it is completely Jewish. It grows up, and the birds (Gentiles) make nests in it.

Indeed, I suppose the purpose of choosing Israel as Covenant Family *was *that all nations should eventually be grafted in. However, the original Israel has maintained its tradition of stoning the prophets and the grafting in of the gentiles happened to coincide with the apostasy of the Jews. That is why Paul warns us not to boast that branches were broken off, that we might be grafted in (which would be replacement theology); they were broken off because of disobedience. And we, too, might be broken off if we are not on guard. And of course the gardener wishes nothing more dearly than to one day graft back in the original branches. And what God wants should be what his people wants.

Please point out any heretic or weak points in this… I am trying hard to get this down in my head.
  • CB
I think this post is excellent and cogent and believable interpretation of what are tough verses in scripture. I don’t think there is anything in your post that is inconsistent with Church teaching (to the extent of my knowledge of it). I would say that scripture does tell us that God has an unbreakable covenant with the Jewish people - but that doesn’t guarantee salvation to all Jews (it didn’t before Christ and it doesn’t after Christ). However, Romans tells us that in the end times, after the full allotment of Gentiles “comes in”, then all Israel will be saved. This, together with Zechariah which talks about the Jewish people, in the end times, mourning for the one whom they have pierced and calling on the name of the Lord, would lead us to believe that in the end times, the Jewish people will, to a large extent, come to faith and be saved. I hope so - as a Jew who came to Christ (thanks be to God).

Thanks for the post.

Blessings,

Brian
 
My reaction is that your assessment makes the same error as others of its nature from non-Jewish sources. It misunderstands the Jewish requirements for Messiahship.

According to Jewsih belief, one becomes the Messiah by bringing about and leading the entire world - not just Jews but also God-fearing Gentiles - into the Messianic Age promised to Abraham - the Age of world peace, of the ultimate triumph of good over evil, and of the deliverance of the Jews from earthly bondage.

There are MANY descriptions of the Messianic Age in the OT - here is a typical one from Isaiah: You will see Jerusalem, a peaceful settlement, a tent that stays put; its stakes will never be pulled up; none of its ropes will snap in two. Instead the Lord will rule there as our mighty king. Rivers and wide streams will flow through it; no war galley will enter; no large ships will sail through. For the Lord, our ruler, the Lord, our commander, the Lord, our king – he will deliver us…No resident of Zion will say, “I am ill”; the people who live there will have all their sins forgiven.(Is. 33:20ff)

Anyone familiar with the situation in the Middle East knows that that time has not arrived.

In Judaism, one does not become the Messiah by claiming to be, nor by working miracles, nor by promising to establish the Messianic Age at some unspecified time in the future. In other words, Jews are not required to accept anyone as the Messiah in advance. No Messianic Age, no Messiah.
Are you saying that Jesus is not the Messiah yet?

I partly agree with you, that if all Jesus had done was claiming to be Messiah, work miracles and promise a future Messianic Age, no God-fearing Jew would have any reason to follow him.

But I believe he did more than that. The center of Jesus preaching was not “I am the Messiah” (he never once uttered those words, and he forbid his followers from saying that), nor was it his miracles (he did all he could to draw attention from them).

The center of Jesus preaching was exactly that “The Kingdom of God is at hand”.

The Kingdom of God in modern exegesis, is often seen as a futuristic event. As something that will happen when Christ returns. But it is much more, as our Holy Father testifies in his book “Jesus of Nazareth”. It is something imminent - something present. It is, if you will, a tiny mustard seed that grows up to a giant tree.

That is not what the Jews where expecting, I know; they were looking for an earthly kingdom (of course there is a physical side to the Kingdom of God in the Church). That is what I meant by not reckognizing the new Macchabeus because he didn’t look like the old ones - he did not come to overthrow the Romans, but rather warned that anyone who didn’t give up their ideals of an earthly kingdom established through might, would perish by sword and falling buildings.
Jesus promised to return QUICKLY - within the lifetime of at least some of His contemporaries. He even told His aposltles that they would not have time to evangleize all of the towns in the area before His return, and Paul also warns his readers, “There is not much time left…for this world, as we know it, will not last much longer.(1 Cor 7:29/31)”
Again, he said that “some of the people who stand here shall see the Kingdom of God” - by which you assume he refers to the Parousia, the second coming. I say he may be refering to the Eucharist, the Crucifixion, the Ressurection, the Ascension or the Church Age (beginning at Pentecost). Or maybe a little of each. The Kingdom of God is present among us, but not everyone sees it.

The hypothesis that Jesus expected to return within a generation is not founded on sound exegesis, but in a picky reading of the New Testament, and ignoring passages that emphasize the imminent nature of the Kingdom.
This is the reason for the number of Jewish proto-Christians. They were faithfully awaiting His imminent return. When that did not occur, and generation followed generation, Christianity became less and less Jewish and more and more Gentile, as the Gentiles had no such expectations and embraced Christ as a different kind of Messiah - one who saves by His teachings and by the example of His life.
Still, the unfulfilled promise of an imminent return remains one of the most mystifying inconsistancies in Christianity. As a Christian, I believe that Christ will eventually return, the Messianic Age will be established, and the Jews will accept Him as the undisputed Messiah.
But I am not holding my breath until that occurs, and I don’t imagine that you are either.
Again, I disagree. With all respect 🙂
  • CB
 
I think this post is excellent and cogent and believable interpretation of what are tough verses in scripture. I don’t think there is anything in your post that is inconsistent with Church teaching (to the extent of my knowledge of it). I would say that scripture does tell us that God has an unbreakable covenant with the Jewish people - but that doesn’t guarantee salvation to all Jews (it didn’t before Christ and it doesn’t after Christ). However, Romans tells us that in the end times, after the full allotment of Gentiles “comes in”, then all Israel will be saved. This, together with Zechariah which talks about the Jewish people, in the end times, mourning for the one whom they have pierced and calling on the name of the Lord, would lead us to believe that in the end times, the Jewish people will, to a large extent, come to faith and be saved. I hope so - as a Jew who came to Christ (thanks be to God).

Thanks for the post.

Blessings,

Brian
Thanks for the kind words…
  • CB
 
I am trying hard to get this down in my head.
  • CB
Wow! I commend you in your study of this topic!

One thing you should consider when it comes to Israel, is remnant, remnant, remnant! And you basically mentioned it already by the first Christians being all Jews, and then go on to St.Pauls description of the Olive Tree. At the time of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came to those in the upper room, those Jews were not only the church Jesus said he will build, but also they and all believing Jews throughout Church history represent the remnant of Israel. The remnant of Israel in Christ’s Church keep that status even though gentiles come in to the Church, and both Jew and Gentiles are equals, one new man in Jesus Christ. Christ removed the wall of partition that separated Jews and Gentiles, and how wonderful that all that belong to Christ are Gods chosen people!

Thanks for your thoughts.

Check your PM.

Romans 11:1-6
I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
 
You said “I should like to balance it with a more Christological perspective, but can’t seem to get my head around it.”

To my mind the following text achieves this.

Ephesians chapter 2 verses 11-22, regarding the uniting of Jews and gentiles through Christ.
 

Please point out any heretic or weak points in this… I am trying hard to get this down in my head.
  • CB
I think you have an orthodox understanding of this, nothing heretical that i can see.

I also have a theory of how the Jews will convert, if you are interested.

scott
 
  1. The center of Jesus preaching was not “I am the Messiah” (he never once uttered those words, and he [forbade] his followers from saying that), nor was it his miracles (he did all he could to draw attention from them).
  2. The center of Jesus preaching was exactly that “The Kingdom of God is at hand”.
The Kingdom of God in modern exegesis, is often seen as a futuristic event. As something that will happen when Christ returns. But it is much more, as our Holy Father testifies in his book “Jesus of Nazareth”. It is something imminent - something present. It is, if you will, a tiny mustard seed that grows up to a giant tree.
  1. That is not what the Jews where expecting, I know; they were looking for an earthly kingdom (of course there is a physical side to the Kingdom of God in the Church). That is what I meant by not reckognizing the new Macchabeus because he didn’t look like the old ones - he did not come to overthrow the Romans, but rather warned that anyone who didn’t give up their ideals of an earthly kingdom established through might, would perish by sword and falling buildings.
  2. Again, he said that “some of the people who stand here shall see the Kingdom of God” - by which you assume he refers to the Parousia, the second coming. I say he may be refering to the Eucharist, the Crucifixion, the Ressurection, the Ascension or the Church Age (beginning at Pentecost). Or maybe a little of each. The Kingdom of God is present among us, but not everyone sees it.
  3. The hypothesis that Jesus expected to return within a generation is not founded on sound exegesis, but in a picky reading of the New Testament, and ignoring passages that emphasize the imminent nature of the Kingdom.
  4. Again, I disagree. With all respect 🙂
And with equal respect:
  1. Actually, He did affirm that when asked, and He forbade them for reasons that were mostly political - He and they would have been accused of blasphemy, as they were. Nor did He try to draw attention away from His miracles. By admonishing His followers not to mention them, He was, in effect, playing on human nature.
2 & 3. ‘At hand’ does not mean thousands of years in the future. While claiming to disagree with me, you are making my point for me. The Jews are still expecting that. Judaism does not deny the possibility of an afterlife, but teaches that God has put us on this earth to live this life, and if we do so in His service, the next life, if there is one, will take care of itself, and that is, of course, one of the biggest differences with Christianity, which puts the emphasis on living one’s life in order to receive eternal reward. In Judaism, serving G-d is its own reward, and the ultimate reward will be the coming of the Messiah.

4 & 5. Ah, but He was much more specific. He was clearly referring to the end of the age, and reflecting Jewish thought at that time, which held that the oppression of the Jews was so intense that the coming of the Messiah must be imminent, and the entire NT affirms this. He also foretold a whole series of events which must precede the coming of the Kingdom - the sun darkening, the stars falling from the sky, etc. None of those things have happened. All of the things you mention are integral events in Church history; the fact remains, His early followers were clearly expecting an imminent return and a new Kingdom on earth.
 
And with equal respect:
  1. Actually, He did affirm that when asked, and He forbade them for reasons that were mostly political - He and they would have been accused of blasphemy, as they were. Nor did He try to draw attention away from His miracles. By admonishing His followers not to mention them, He was, in effect, playing on human nature.
My arguement remains, that these were not the focal point of his preaching. His preaching was the Kingdom of God.
2 & 3. ‘At hand’ does not mean thousands of years in the future. While claiming to disagree with me, you are making my point for me. The Jews are still expecting that. Judaism does not deny the possibility of an afterlife, but teaches that God has put us on this earth to live this life, and if we do so in His service, the next life, if there is one, will take care of itself, and that is, of course, one of the biggest differences with Christianity, which puts the emphasis on living one’s life in order to receive eternal reward. In Judaism, serving G-d is its own reward, and the ultimate reward will be the coming of the Messiah.
You are right: it doesn’t. It means either, that it is in the neat future or that it is already there. The Kingdom is not simply the Parousia, although that is of course when it will be fully realized and revealed. The Kingdom is present and has been for 2000 years.

Christ himself signifies the Kingdom by being a king (the Greek word, I’ve been told, emphasises the King’s active rule more than the English), and He reigns in his Church and in the believers’ hearts. Thus “the Kingdom is in the middle of you (or *within *you)”.
4 & 5. Ah, but He was much more specific. He was clearly referring to the end of the age, and reflecting Jewish thought at that time, which held that the oppression of the Jews was so intense that the coming of the Messiah must be imminent, and the entire NT affirms this. He also foretold a whole series of events which must precede the coming of the Kingdom - the sun darkening, the stars falling from the sky, etc. None of those things have happened. All of the things you mention are integral events in Church history; the fact remains, His early followers were clearly expecting an imminent return and a new Kingdom on earth.
Could we please agree which passage we are discussing 🙂 Makes it a lot easier…

By the way: The sun darkening and stars falling etc. are figurative/apocalyptic speech for great political changes - the fall of empires and such. It is not to be taken literally.
  • CB
 
  1. Could we please agree which passage we are discussing 🙂 Makes it a lot easier…
  2. By the way: The sun darkening and stars falling etc. are figurative/apocalyptic speech for great political changes - the fall of empires and such. It is not to be taken literally.
  1. Compare Mt 16:27-28 with Mark 13:21-31 . For Christ’s admonition to His apostles regarding the short time left, see Mt 10:23. For the Jewish mindset that the Messianic Age was on the horizon, see Luke 2:25-26 and Mark 15:42, among others.
  2. It may be used that way now, referring to these very verses. Can you give any examples of it being so used previously? As far as I know, this is STILL what devout Christians and Jews believe will happen, literally, at the end of time, and that was obviously what Christ was describing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top