A Sea Of Red

Rebuttle:
Luke 5:
29 And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them. 30 The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?" 31 And Jesus answered and said to them, "It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. 32 "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."

The Old Testament Jewish religion is one of exclusiveness, but NT Christianity is one of inclusion. Anyone care to discuss the two apparantly contradictory passages?

I have to disagree. Jesus lived Judaism out like it was supposed to. The entire Bible is about missions, starting with Gen 12 (Abrahamic Covenant). God's purpose was to bless all nations through Abraham,(Israel). Jesus is of course that answer. If you look at the apostles in the beginning of Acts they were still going to the Temple daily. Jewish Christians stopped going to the Temple only when it was destroyed by Titus and the Romans in 70 AD. The Old and New Testaments go together, they should not be thought of two seperate schools. Jesus properly interpreted the Old Testament and thus sought to include Matthew the tax collector.

Was it not God who warned the Israelites about inter-marrying or even co-habitating with their pagan neighbors? Sounds pretty exclusive to me.

You have to remember, these folks just came out of 400 some odd years of captivity, and were heading into the land he promised them. God did not want them intermarrying because he knew that if they did there was the possibility of them worshipping other gods, which if you look at the Bible, DID happen...a lot...not to mention he did not want the pagan peoples defiling the land he had set apart for them. There was no church in that day...well at least not in the sense that it was in the New testament. Once the church was established, the focus changed. I don't see it as much as a matter of exclusivity, but rather a matter of protection and fulfillment of prophecy. I may be using bad theology so correct me if Im off base here.

Exactly. And when the Israelites proved themselves incapable of keeping the covenant, God sent His Son for ALL of mankind. THAT is where the interconnect comes into play.

This is what I imagined "the chapel" to be like 24/7 since this board is filled with LU students. It never really developed though. Someone go post something contraversial in there.

Which is probably where the majority of this discussion belongs. Let's move it over there and keep this thread for the specific verse for the F in the F.

Great thought, LUconn--and a needed break from the usual. Nice to get some theological discourse in here for a change.

There are many examples of God-fearers (Gentiles who were baptized) and proselyte (Gentiles who took the outward mark of the covenant, circumsicion, and were baptized) throughout the Old Testament and the early New Testament. Rahab, Ruth, Uriah the Hittite, the Etheopian eunuch, Cornelius the Roman Centurion are just some of those. Gentiles who were circumcized had many of the same privelages as natural born Jews.

bearing in mind I'm just the layperson here and don't get into these discussions as a rule:

I always considered the OT kinda a dissertation on Jewish law and Israeli history.

The NT is the part for us goyim. More or less the "Protestant" part of the Bible.

just MHO

all you theology majors may commence attacking......NOW

There were a number of non-Israelites in the OT who seemed to be "in good standing" with God. Rahab, Ruth and the prophet Balaam all jump immediately to mind. From my perspective, the exclusionary aspects of OT Judaism had more to with making sure the people kept in touch with the values God had given them and had less to do with keeping the bloodlines clean or God condemning the Gentiles for a period. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus' indicates that the actions of the Gentile Samaritan were more in keeping with the spirit of the Mosaic Law than were the actions of the orthodox Pharisees. This indicates to me that Gentiles were not strictly excluded from fellowship with God so long as they kept His commandments. Then, as now, salvation came through the blood of the Sacrifice, not through the blood of the father.

Check out the story of Naaman the Syrian general who was a leper and was healed by God - its in II Kings 5. Also Jonah is all about making the Gentiles look good and Jonah look bad. The gentile sailors do the right thing and the citizens of Ninevah immediately repent and believe. I'm surprised Jonah made it into the Hebrew Bible. If you read any of N.T. Wright's works you will see that his primary argument is that Jesus came to destroy the nationalistic version of Judaism that had come to dominate which was intent on excluding everyone else from God's salvation except the "Good Jews" i.e., Pharisees. Plus if you want a great sermon by Wright on Naaman the leper email me privately and I'll send it to you.

Very good discussion