The land of Israel and the Bible

[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 In this sense, the Old Covenant is superceded; as the Holy Father says, "what is provisional in it has been swept away."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.)

[Era Might]

Yes, I am aware that there were multiple covenants made by God (Scott Hahn, whose theology is very much covenant oriented, discusses this at length in "A Father Who Keeps His Promises"). Salvation history is basically a succession of covenants, which culminates in the New and Eternal Covenant made in Christ's blood with the Church.

I must disagree that there is no early record of this discussion. One of the earliest heretics was Marcion, whose animus toward the Old Testament was condemned by the Church. The Fathers treated of this topic at length.

[quote]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.[/quote]

The unconditional nature of the Covenant does not abolish accidents and substance (sorry, couldn't help introducing a little Romish terminology : ).

The biblical case for the Catholic position deserves a much deeper defense than I feel like giving right now. I will have to agree to disagree.

Edited January 14, 2006 by Era Might

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jan 14 2006, 09:27 PM']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.)
[right][snapback]856116[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The form of the covenant is clear from the prophesies of the Old Testament and the allusions made to them in the New Testament e.g. Mt 16:18-20 and Isa 22:19-23 wherein the Davidic King gives his keys to his chief minister. The covenant the Church is in the covenant made with all from Adam onwards which the New Testament makes quite clear. The children of Abraham can be raised up from rock as we learn in John's gospel, or more forerightly in the Pauline Corpus where children of Abraham are regarded as the faithful regardless of circumcision. The why's of the Church's covenant are not left under doubt by the death of Jesus as the Lamb of God drinking the fourth cup of the seder from the cross as sour wine or the exegesis on that given by the NT epistles. For breaking their covenants with God the old covenant meditators incurred the punishments of those for man and Israel, which were taken up in Christ when he became a curse for us (1 Pet). The Church daily renews the aforesaid covenant in its sacrifice of our pascha: the Eucharist, the todah of the Church which the rabbis told us would be the sole offering in the Messianic age...

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 14 2006, 04:30 PM']The biblical case for the Catholic position deserves a much deeper defense than I feel like giving right now. I will have to agree to disagree. 
[right][snapback]856118[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Fair enough. You can open dozens of threads of debate on the amount of issues I tried to summarize here.

I've heard of that book and the theology he argues for. I will counter by another book recommendation "Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament" by Walter Kaiser.

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 14 2006, 04:36 PM']The form of the covenant is clear from the prophesies of the Old Testament and the allusions made to them in the New Testament e.g. Mt 16:18-20 and Isa 22:19-23 wherein the Davidic King gives his keys to his chief minister. The covenant the Church is in the covenant made with all from Adam onwards which the New Testament makes quite clear.[right][snapback]856126[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Are you saying that the "covenant made with all from Adam" is clear in Scripture?

I would put forth that there is only one possible reference to a covenant with Adam in the entirety of Scripture. A rather weak amount of references for something Catholics hold so firmly.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Jan 14 2006, 09:41 PM']Are you saying that the "covenant made with all from Adam" is clear in Scripture?

I would put forth that there is only one possible reference to a covenant with Adam in the entirety of Scripture.  A rather weak amount of references for something Catholics hold so firmly.
[right][snapback]856131[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Even if I could be bothered to debate my reference to Adam you surely cannot ignore the covenantal promises made in Deuteronomy and Chronicles, Kings and the Prophetic writings which Jesus evidently ties up in Himself and brings to realisation through His creation of a universal and everlasting Kingdom.

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 14 2006, 04:52 PM']Even if I could be bothered to debate my reference to Adam you surely cannot ignore the covenantal promises made in Deuteronomy and Chronicles, Kings and the Prophetic writings which Jesus evidently ties up in Himself and brings to realisation through His creation of a universal and everlasting Kingdom.
[right][snapback]856138[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I had a bigger response written, but then I realized how far I was off the topic so I erased it.

Yes, I most certainly agree that Jesus Christ ties all history together with Him.

However,

The land promises made to Abraham do not 'change' because Christ said that. If they do, we have to change our understanding of Scripture to be this: "At any moment, more revelation may be known to us that may possibly make us change ALL our understandings of what God's plan is for us."

Frankly I believe in a progressive nature of God's revelation, not one that changes what has already been said.

God promised Abraham the land of Canaan in a covenant that was unilateral, I believe He will get it because I believe that the promises and covenants God makes are not subject to future revelation (see clause C, paragraph 3, sentence 2 (attempt at humor)), but are given in words and logic that we can understand and take hope in [i]today[/i]. Any further revelation will build on what has already been said - not change it.

[sraf]

[quote name='Era Might']The Israelis and the Palestinians need to get a life, live in peace, and stop arguing over a heap of dirt.[/quote]
That is true. However, I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. (Rats. ) The injuries and the hate have gone down too deep to be simply resolved by a "Look! Here's your house - here's [i]your[/i] house - don't mess up each other's hedges - shake hands - DONE."
Whatever the Church says, I believe that YES Israel should give up land. It was wrong in the first place to take land away from the Palestinians, even if the Jews did need a homeland after the Holocaust it is simply wrong to take the homes away from the people who live there. And worse, continuing to take land away from the Palestinians. And it's not even land - more water is given to Israelis than to Palestinians. The US media reports the deaths of 6 Israeli children, but somehow neglects to mention 100 child casualties on the other side.
I am not trying to let this become a religious issue. Hitler used religion and nationalistic pride as a reason to wipe out the Jews. If religion remains the cornerstone of reasons as to why People X should have the land as opposed to People Y, then we will never get anywhere except to more violent places.
Peace in Palestine, peace everywhere.

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='sraf' date='Jan 15 2006, 08:58 PM'][quote name='Era Might']The Israelis and the Palestinians need to get a life, live in peace, and stop arguing over a heap of dirt.[/quote]
That is true. However, I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. (Rats. ) The injuries and the hate have gone down too deep to be simply resolved by a "Look! Here's your house - here's [i]your[/i] house - don't mess up each other's hedges - shake hands - DONE."
Whatever the Church says, I believe that YES Israel should give up land. [b]It was wrong in the first place to take land away from the Palestinians[/b], even if the Jews did need a homeland after the Holocaust it is simply wrong to take the homes away from the people who live there. And worse, continuing to take land away from the Palestinians. And it's not even land - more water is given to Israelis than to Palestinians. [b]The US media reports the deaths of 6 Israeli children, but somehow neglects to mention 100 child casualties on the other side. [/b]
I am not trying to let this become a religious issue. Hitler used religion and nationalistic pride as a reason to wipe out the Jews. If religion remains the cornerstone of reasons as to why People X should have the land as opposed to People Y, then we will never get anywhere except to more violent places.
Peace in Palestine, peace everywhere.
[right][snapback]857158[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

2 things, the numbers will correlate with the sections I put in bold.

1) This is common misinformation. If you look at the areas Israel originally got [i]no one[/i] was living in those areas. They were deserts, malaria infested swamps, mostly harsh conditioned land. A photo is here ( [url="http://ijs.org.au/IJS/MintDigital.NET/assets/ContentImages/img0059.gif"]http://ijs.org.au/IJS/MintDigital.NET/asse...ges/img0059.gif[/url] ) that details the area given to Israel in the 1947 partition plan. The Arabs had very few people living there then. The Jews also had a presence there BEFORE any land was given to them. look at this map now ( [url="http://www.tomhull.com/ocston/projects/ajvp/passia_land_1947_c1.gif"]http://www.tomhull.com/ocston/projects/ajv...and_1947_c1.gif[/url] ). The dark blue areas are areas Jews lived BEFORE they were given any land. After they because a state in 1948 7 arab countries declared war with the intent to murder every single family that lived there. The Jewish presence there was not an issue until they became their own state. And since that time, Arabs have forced refugee's to live there (yes, Arabs did it, those refugee's were NOT allowed to return home, they were forced to live there in an attempt to bring sympathy to their cause in the international community.) I could go on, but this is getting long as it is .

2) The Jewish police/army do not kill women and children palestinians. If they do it is because the Palestinians have placed them around terrorists trying to launch rockets, or by accident as a Palestinian child has been placed and is using a fake gun against IDF forces. Palestinians in contrast almost ONLY attack and kill Israeli women and children. I recommend the site [url="http://www.honestreporting.com/"]http://www.honestreporting.com/[/url] . It takes many of the articles newspapers present online and gives background on how much the journalists twist stories to suit their needs. This image ( [url="http://honestreporting.com/graphics/tuvia.jpg"]http://honestreporting.com/graphics/tuvia.jpg[/url] ) is the classic one as well that they cover. The father of the boy in the photograph tried to stop the news agencies because the Israeli guard had been saving the Palestinian boy from other Palestinians there. The story was published anyway saying that the IDF guard had beaten the Palestinian youth.

While I am on this topic, I will add that there must be greater awareness of what is going on in the Gaza strip today. The strip is in chaos. Local 'mafia' groups are all vying for power, corruption is at an extreme, and the media will not report it. In fact the media has been threatened if it does report on what is going on in the Gaza strip. Here is an article that has more information: ( [url="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361038491&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull"]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull[/url] )