Disclaimer: I am well aware that this is several pages behind, but my post was responded to, so therefore I feel that I must respond to the response. Also, for the purpose of this post, I use the terms "Chosen People," "Children of God," and "Israelite" fairly interchangeably.
The idea that the Covenant with the Jews is over is all but explicitly expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
... yeah, literally in the same set of verses: 10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
I guess by "all but explicitly" you mean "explicitly not"...
The title of Israel applies to the Christian establishment, not to the Jews. Just about every term used to describe the Jews in the Old Testament becomes used to describe the Christian converts in the New Testament. Also, Jews disobedient to God are considered forsaken by Him; they are not the Chosen People or the Children of God [Deuteronomy 31:16-17; St. John 8:42]. However, those that believe in Christ
are the Sons of God [St. John 1:12], therefore the Chosen People.
That sounds pretty specifically like they're still the chosen people of YWHW. Further, it's not because of a group of them's giving up of Streaker J to the romans that the old covenant has waned -- it's just because there's a better priest in town.
The Chosen People are those that accept Jesus Christ [Colossians 3:11-12]; those that do not are excluded from God's people [Acts 3:22-23]. The Jews' rejection of Jesus unto death forfeits their claim to be Chosen People.
Hebrew 6 also kiiiinda' mentions YWHW's inability to lie, which I'd say would preclude its breaking of old oaths. The covenant may have changed, but promises previously made would likely still hold.
The Old Covenant, just like the new, is not a one-way deal: God offers promises to His Children in exchange for their faith and devotion, of which the Jews had neither for Christ. When the Old became the New, all believers inherited the title of the Children of God.
Also as noted, the whole "subset of wicked Jews doing wicked things and then better ones coming along" is apparently a very standard judaic literary technique, at least during the periods the torah (and related texts) was being passed along and eventually transcribed. Sort of an applied No True Scotsman thing. It... probably doesn't actually mean that much, from the text's perspective.
I'm not willing to write off all that has to do with those who do not keep their part of the Covenant being excluded as merely "a Judaic literary technique." It all cases, the Jews violated their part of the bargain by rejecting Jesus.
No lost claim sighted?
Sorry pal.
P.S.
Why do you refer to God the Father solely as YHWH, and God the Son as "Streaker J?"
Poll
Author
Topic: Christian beliefs and discussion (Read 195259 times)