The land of Israel and the Bible

[Paladin D]

Does the Church support Israel giving up land to the Palestinians? I'm not very knowledgable when it comes to Israel, God's plan for them, and the land. How do we know giving up land will make peace between the two?

[furay]

The Church is Israel.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='furay' date='Jan 13 2006, 04:23 AM']The Church is Israel.
[right][snapback]854635[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Precisely. The Messianic Kingdom of God is the Holy Catholic Church and salvation history has culminated in the worship of God through it in Spirit and in Truth (Jn 4). Israel's destiny is to come to faith in Christ what happens in the Holy Land itself doesn't seem to be of much consequence to salvation history.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='furay' date='Jan 12 2006, 08:23 PM']The Church is Israel.
[right][snapback]854635[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


what?

[photosynthesis]

Israel was always the People of God, the Chosen Ones, the Holy nation. In Christ, God expanded His covenant with the Israelites to include members of every nation. You could say that the Church is Israel, but more clearly put, the Church is the fulfillment of Israel in the new covenant.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jan 12 2006, 11:24 PM']Does the Church support Israel giving up land to the Palestinians? 
[right][snapback]854517[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hell NO!
and this isn’t a Church issue, as it doesn’t deal in religious faith or morals...
this is a global political issue
and the treaty that gave land for a nation of Israel set aside all that land - remember that next time you hear the term "occupied land" bandied about

[Church Punk]

I think it is funny to hear the likes of Pat Robinson go off that touching the country of Isreal will result in catostrophic events in the US. I.E. Hurricane Katrina.

But thats not what the scripture teaches us.

[quote] - [b]Rev 21: [/b]
2  And I, John, saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a [b]bride adorned for her husband.[/b]
3  And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying: Behold the tabernacle of God with men: and he will dwell with them. And they shall be his people: and God himself with them shall be their God.

[/quote]

Edited January 13, 2006 by Church Punk

[God's Errand Girl]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jan 13 2006, 01:12 AM']Israel was always the People of God, the Chosen Ones, the Holy nation.  In Christ, God expanded His covenant with the Israelites to include members of every nation.  You could say that the Church is Israel, but more clearly put, the Church is the fulfillment of Israel in the new covenant.
[right][snapback]854772[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, but does that mean that the covenant that God made with the [b]nation[/b] Israel is no longer applicable?

[Era Might]

The Israelis and the Palestinians need to get a life, live in peace, and stop arguing over a heap of dirt.

Edited January 14, 2006 by Era Might

[furay]

[quote name='God's Errand Girl' date='Jan 13 2006, 09:21 PM']Yes, but does that mean that the covenant that God made with the [b]nation[/b] Israel is no longer applicable?
[right][snapback]855581[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
God did not make a covenant with the modern nation state of "Israel" established in A.D. 1948. Therefore that state has no divine right to the land. Whether they have a man-made right to the land through treaties and wars fought... well that's up for debate.

[God's Errand Girl]

Yes, the nation state of Israel was established in 1948. But isn't that nation composed of the people that the covenant was originally made with?

"On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram saying, 'To your descendants I have given this land..." (Gen 15:18) In the verse before this, the scripture states that there appeared a "smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces"; my Bible's footnotes explain the significance--"As other near Eastern texts and Jer 34:18 indicate, by passing between the torn animals (signifying the punishment due those who break the covenant) God invokes a self-maledictory oath or curse upon Himself should He fail to keep His covenant."

Is there a scripture where God invalidates this contract?

Scripture gives numerous examples where God allowed adversity to come upon the people of Israel when they would stray from him. I don't know if this applies to current events in Israel now, because I don't have the perspective to know, but it is something to consider.

Edited January 14, 2006 by God's Errand Girl

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='God's Errand Girl' date='Jan 14 2006, 02:58 AM']Yes, the nation state of Israel was established in 1948.  But isn't  that nation composed of the people that the covenant was originally made with?

"On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram saying, 'To your descendants I have given this land..." (Gen 15:18)  In the verse before this, the scripture states that there appeared a "smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces"; my Bible's footnotes explain the significance--"As other near Eastern texts and Jer 34:18 indicate, by passing between the torn animals (signifying the punishment due those who break the covenant) God invokes a self-maledictory oath or curse upon Himself should He fail to keep His covenant."

Is there a scripture where God invalidates this contract?

Scripture gives numerous examples where God allowed adversity to come upon the people of Israel when they would stray from him.  I don't know if this applies to current events in Israel now, because I don't have the perspective to know, but it is something to consider.
[right][snapback]855656[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

In my opinion God's covenant with the Church supersede's his covenant with Israel. How can the New Covenant and the Old Covenant co-exist? If that were true then all we read in the epistle to the Hebrews about the efficaiousness of animal sacrifices would be wrong. The Old Covenant culminates in the new, God's covenant with the Church is a fulfilment of all the prophecies of the Old Testament and thus it logically replaces them. The Church is the New Israel over which the Davidic Prime Minister (cf Isa 22:19-23; Mt 16:18-20) reigns holding the keys of the Son of David, the Christ. The land of Israel itself has served its purpose in salvation history. God's Kindgom is not of this world (Jn 19).

[furay]

Well said.

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='God's Errand Girl' date='Jan 13 2006, 09:58 PM']Yes, the nation state of Israel was established in 1948.  But isn't  that nation composed of the people that the covenant was originally made with?

"On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram saying, 'To your descendants I have given this land..." (Gen 15:18)  In the verse before this, the scripture states that there appeared a "smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces"; my Bible's footnotes explain the significance--"As other near Eastern texts and Jer 34:18 indicate, by passing between the torn animals (signifying the punishment due those who break the covenant) God invokes a self-maledictory oath or curse upon Himself should He fail to keep His covenant."

Is there a scripture where God invalidates this contract?

Scripture gives numerous examples where God allowed adversity to come upon the people of Israel when they would stray from him.  I don't know if this applies to current events in Israel now, because I don't have the perspective to know, but it is something to consider.
[right][snapback]855656[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

As an evangelical scholar of the OT I must say that you are exactly correct. Nothing in Scripture invalidates that contract. There also is NO covenant given for the church. What covenant is mentioned is the new covenant (words taken from Jeremiah) which could also be called the renewed covenant. In that Covenant the house of Israel and the house of Judah are the two groups promised certain things. Since I am not of the house of Israel or the house of Judah we can safely say something is going on here that is a little weird. Basically in a shortened form, we have been added as partakers of the New Covenant. And also just as Moses was an ambassador of the Mosaic Covenant before it arrived (he never set foot in Canaan), we also are ambassador's of the New Covenant which has not arrived (our sins are not forgotten, etc.).

The typical Catholic view of this (although I am fairly sure it is not 'anti-Catholic' to believe otherwise) is the view of Sensus Plenor. Basically what Sensus Plenor (sorry about the spelling) says is that behind the Old Testament texts there was a deeper meaning tied into it that was unlocked when you reread the texts knowing who Jesus is and what He did. I extremely strongly disagree with this for reasons of arbitrary interpretation and the futility it puts on human logic, but many do agree with it. Taking Sensus Plenor on the Old Testament the land promises becoming fulfilled in the Church instead of ethnic Israel because the Church in this logic is Israel today.

In regard to the Holy Land being given up and Pat Robinson's ugly words, all you have to do is to do a study of Lamentations for an answer.

Lamentations as you know is traditionally attributed authorship to Jeremiah. There is strong reason for that in the text. In Lamentations Jeremiahs laments the fallen city of Jerusalem. The false-prophets of the day said that Israel's land could not be destroyed, Jerusalem could not fall. They said that because the Shekinah (dwelling presence of God) dwelt in the Temple in those days. Jeremiah prophesized against them, but the people did not listen and repent. We know the result of that (3 captivities, last in 586 B.C. going to Babylon). However, if God could divide up his own land while His own presence dwelt there, how much easier would it be for Him to divide His own land today? How much easier would it also be or Him to extinguish the candle in every church? Sure the 'gates of Hades shall not prevail', but that is an ultimate prophecy, not one that can be translated into a daily promise. So yeah, Israel's land could be chopped up, nothing wrong with that. But no I don't agree with the typical Catholic understanding.

(For more information on any of these issues feel free to PM me. I have a paper I wrote not too long ago on the New Covenant and the Church's inclusion).

[Era Might]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jan 14 2006, 12:48 PM']There also is NO covenant given for the church.
[right][snapback]855987[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I respect your opinion as an Evangelical, but this is entirely incongruous with Catholic doctrine. The New and Eternal Covenant is between Christ and his Church, renewed every day on the altar of Eucharistic sacrifice. It supercedes the old Covenant, which, as a covenant of works, could never accomplish the salvation of the world.

Pope Benedict XVI explains, from a Catholic perspective, of course:

[quote]"The Torah of the Messiah is the Messiah, Jesus himself. ...In this way the ‘Law’ becomes universal; it is grace constituting a people which becomes such by hearing the word and undergoing conversion. In this Torah, which is Jesus himself, the abiding essence of what was inscribed on the stone tablets at Sinai is now written in living flesh, namely, the twofold command of love. This is set forth in Philippians 2:5 as ‘the mind of Christ.’ [b]To imitate him, to follow him in discipleship, is therefore to keep the Torah, which has been fulfilled in him once and for all[/b].

"[b]Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superceded[/b]. But once what is provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it. So the expectation of the New Covenant, which becomes clearer and clearer as the history of Israel unfolds, does not conflict with the Sinai covenant; rather, it fulfills the dynamic expectation found in that very covenant."

--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "Many Religions, One Covenant", pgs. 70-71[/quote]

The Holy Father goes on to discuss the Christian relationship to Israel, vis a vis evangelization:

[quote]"Does this mean that missionary activity should cease and be replaced by dialogue, where it is not a question of truth but of making one another better Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus or Buddhists? My answer is No. For this would be nothing other than total lack of conviction; under the pretext of affirming one another in our best points, we would in fact be failing to take ourselves (or others) seriously; we would be finally renouncing truth. Rather, the answer must be that mission and dialogue should no longer be opposites but should mutually interpenetrate.

"Dialogue is not aimless conversation; it aims at conviction, at finding the truth; otherwise it is worthless. Conversely, missionary activity in the future cannot proceed as if it were simply a case of communicating to someone who has no knowledge at all of God what he has to believe.”

"There can be this kind of communication, of course, and perhaps it will become more widespread in certain places in a world that is becoming increasingly atheistic. But in the world of religions we meet people who have heard of God through their religion and try to live in relationship with him.

"In this way, proclamation of the gospel must be necessarily a dialogical process. We are not telling the other person something that is entirely unknown to him; rather, we are opening up the hidden depth of something with which, in his own religion, he is already in touch."

--ibid, pgs. 111-112 [/quote]

Edited January 14, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='furay' date='Jan 13 2006, 09:43 PM']God did not make a covenant with the modern nation state of "Israel" established in A.D. 1948. Therefore that state has no divine right to the land. Whether they have a man-made right to the land through treaties and wars fought... well that's up for debate. 
[right][snapback]855602[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Pope John Paul II expounded on the Church's conviction with regard to the crisis in the Middle East:

[quote]"The Holy See is convinced that the present conflict will be resolved only when there are two independent and sovereign states. [b]Two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, are called to live side by side, equally free and sovereign, in mutual respect[/b].

"By no means should a decision be made unilaterally. Rather, respect, mutual understanding and solidarity demand that the path of dialogue never be abandoned. Nor should real or apparent failures lead the partners in dialogue and negotiation to be discouraged."[/quote]

Edited January 14, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='God's Errand Girl' date='Jan 13 2006, 10:58 PM']Is there a scripture where God invalidates this contract?
[right][snapback]855656[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Old Covenant, essentially, was a Covenant of love between God and Israel. It was a covenant of love, and a covenant of fulfillment.

This fulfillment was accomplished in Christ. In this sense, the Old Covenant is superceded; as the Holy Father says, "what is provisional in it has been swept away." This includes any divine right to the Holy Land.

However, even while the provisional elements of the Old Covenant have passed away, "we see what is truly definitive in it". The love of God for Israel, and his call to fulfillment, which is his call to the Church established by his Son, never ceases. It is in this sense that the Old Covenant endures, through the love of God, and not through provisional elements which have been fulfilled in Christ.

Edited January 14, 2006 by Era Might

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 14 2006, 03:53 PM']The Old Covenant, essentially, was a Covenant of love between God and Israel. It was a covenant of love, and a covenant of fulfillment.[right][snapback]856097[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I assume you are speaking of the covenant made to Moses here since the New Covenant effectively fulfills what the Mosaic covenant attempted to do. However the covenant I was speaking of was the Abrahamic Covenant which you would have to agree was made decidedly in blood.

In Genesis 15 we have the remarkable event where God "passed between ... pieces" (v7) of animal flesh that Abraham cut in half and laid on the ground (v9). This covenant was not an odd one but one practiced during that time period. In this ritual there were promises made and then by walking between those animals in the pool of blood you effectively said "If I do not uphold my promise, may this happen to me." When Abraham falls asleep we see that God passed between the animal pieces promising something. What is remarkable about this is that Abraham had no responsibility. [b]In effect, the covenant made to Abraham could never fail unless God failed.[/b]

There is a question however just of what God had promised. If you scour the subsequent and previous chapters of Genesis you can see that 3 things were promised. The land of Canaan (Gen 13 first mentioned), an heir (Gen. 3, 15), and a heritage (Abraham would be blessed so he could bless all nations). This covenant placed no responsibility on Abraham, and honestly, if you take the position that this covenant was part of a greater covenant of love, you still need to deal with the unilaternal and unconditionality of this.

I should also clarify, in Scripture there is no place that a covenant made with the Church. You can accept your tradition on what is going on with the church and Israel. I find that difficult to do that for normal protestant reasons, but also because there really is no early record of people dealing with this issue. It has been a development in theology over time that the Catholic Church, evangelicals, protestants, etc. have all attempted to answer. I also have a preference for Scripture first, and so would take more modern ANE (ancient near east) archaeology discoveries to clarify this issue, than what a pope said.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jan 14 2006, 09:14 PM']I assume you are speaking of the covenant made to Moses here since the New Covenant effectively fulfills what the Mosaic covenant attempted to do.  However the covenant I was speaking of was the Abrahamic Covenant which you would have to agree was made decidedly in blood.

In Genesis 15 we have the remarkable event where God "passed between ... pieces" (v7) of animal flesh that Abraham cut in half and laid on the ground (v9).  This covenant was not an odd one but one practiced during that time period.  In this ritual there were promises made and then by walking between those animals in the pool of blood you effectively said "If I do not uphold my promise, may this happen to me."  When Abraham falls asleep we see that God passed between the animal pieces promising something.  What is remarkable about this is that Abraham had no responsibility.  [b]In effect, the covenant made to Abraham could never fail unless God failed.[/b]

There is a question however just of what God had promised.  If you scour the subsequent and previous chapters of Genesis you can see that 3 things were promised.  The land of Canaan (Gen 13 first mentioned), an heir (Gen. 3, 15), and a heritage (Abraham would be blessed so he could bless all nations).  This covenant placed no responsibility on Abraham, and honestly, if you take the position that this covenant was part of a greater covenant of love, you still need to deal with the unilaternal and unconditionality of this.

I should also clarify, in Scripture there is no place that a covenant made with the Church.  You can accept your tradition on what is going on with the church and Israel.  I find that difficult to do that for normal protestant reasons, but also because there really is no early record of people dealing with this issue.  It has been a development in theology over time that the Catholic Church, evangelicals, protestants, etc. have all attempted to answer.  I also have a preference for Scripture first, and so would take more modern ANE (ancient near east) archaeology discoveries to clarify this issue, than what a pope said.
[right][snapback]856105[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The covenant with the Church is stated clearly in the last supper narratives and throughout the New Testament e.g. Hebrews where the effectiveness of the Old Covenant and the need for the New Covenant are discussed extensively. The Church fulfils all that was promised under the Old Covenant and brings it to fruition as an eteranal, universal, messianic Kingdom. The Church is the final form of the people of God, the covenant is first for the Jew then for the Gentile as Romans tells us, but in its final form everyone is brought together as the mystical body of Christ constituting the new Messianic Kingdom which is not bound to a temporal locale.

Edited January 14, 2006 by Myles

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 14 2006, 04:18 PM']The covenant with the Church is stated clearly in the last supper narratives and throughout the New Testament e.g. Hebrews where the effectiveness of the Old Covenant and the need for the New Covenant are discussed extensively. The Church fulfils all that was promised under the Old Covenant and brings it to fruition as an eteranal, universal, messianic Kingdom.
[right][snapback]856108[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It is stated that we are in one, but nowhere does it state what that covenant is. That is the issue. Just exactly what covenant is the church in, and why is the church in it? No covenant is stated in Scripture to be made with the church. (note, saying we are in one is not the same as saying one was made with us.)