This is a very important interview. Saun Sonna has done his homework and is an excellent interviewer. His preparation is evident, he even challenges Dr Staples’ ideas at one point. However, in the end Saun Sonna admits “Once you have seen it, you can’t unsee it.” One highlight is Dr. Staples’ assertion that his reading of Paul is ecumenical. Of course, he is correct that His reading is neither Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant so in that sense it is ecumenical. But will it be adopted by all branches of the Christian world? Even more interesting what will the modern Jewish world say about a Jewish Paul working to regather the tribes? Very refreshing to see two extremely bright gentlemen discussing the bible in an intellectually honest and historically accurate second temple context. Great work gentlemen!
This isn’t that hard to understand despite decades of many Christians missing/ or ignoring it. Jason Staples’ work is absolutely amazing! He totally gets it!! Others like Batya Wootten and Ephraim and Rimona Frank have been at this for a long time as well. Genesis 48, all 14 chapters of Hosea, the new covenant in Jeremiah, the two sticks of Ezekiel and many other prophets of God speak of this. It’s almost too easy yet many don’t see it, ignore it, or reject it.
1:15:34 Yes, the heuristic value of this interpretation is a sign of its strength. Per Ratzinger, "From a purely scientific point of view, the legitimacy of an interpretation depends on its power to explain things. In other words, the less it needs to interfere with the sources, the more it respects the corpus as given and is able to show it to be intelligible from within, by its own logic, the more apposite such an interpretation is. Conversely, the more it interferes with the sources, the more it feels obliged to excise and throw doubt on things found there, the more alien to the subject it is. To that extent, its explanatory power is also its ability to maintain the inner unity of the corpus in question. It involves the ability to unify, to achieve a synthesis, which is the reverse of superficial harmonization. Indeed, only faith’s hermeneutic is sufficient to measure up to these criteria." RATZINGER, JOSEPH, Behold The Pierced One: An Approach to a Spiritual Christology, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1986, 44-45.
Question: how can some claim today's judaists are in a covenant with God if they can't offer the required animal sacrifices? Edit: I remember I somewhere read a statement from a pope or council that stated the jews who reject Jesus are no longer the seed of Abraham. If I remember correctly, that seems relevant to this discussion.
There are two main forms of Judaism today, one awaits for God to build a divine temple, aka a miracle. The other seeks to build one through decent and land stealing.
@@Elburion neither form is in a covenant with God because they have been providentially made unable by God to do the sacrifices needed to uphold the Old Covenant.
a few points they are still the people who were called out by god and given the law. They still have the law and though the law itself doesn’t save, it still directs and points them to the one who does save that is Christ. now its true that some of the jews are obstinately choosing to reject christ and can not see christ in the law, and so they are still trying to do the law and be righteous by the law but are unable and so they reap the curses of the law. so in conclusion yes they are still under the old covenant. that covenant doesn’t save them nor does it justify them rather it points out their failings and puts them under the curses of the law. this need to be understood with some nuance, not every jew is a religious jew who is trying to follow the law, and not every jew today is obstinately rejecting christ.
@@zekidan8284 you didn't address the point I made. No, today's jews do not have the law. They are not enabled by God to live in the way God called their fathers to follow. I reach this position by obse4ving that God took away their possibility to offer animal sacrifices. I'm not talking about salvation, I'm talking strictly of the law. These judaists of today may know about the law, but they do not have it. They're larpers. That's my position. Is your position that merely trying to do the law is enough to consider a covenant?
Jason Staples has done superb work! The title of his book is brilliant. In my view, the resurrected King is the prime analogate for the restored Kingdom. Exiled Israel has become fulfilled Israel. The catepillar has become the butterfly. This is transfiguration, not supersession. For supersession (or replacement) to take place, X must supersede (or replace) Y. But it is senseless to say that X replaces X. Accordingly, it is not proper to say that the risen Christ replaced the crucified Christ, for there are not two Jesuses. Nor is it appropriate to say that Spirit-filled Israel replaced Spirit-expecting Israel, as if these were numerically distinct. Rather, it is proper to say that Christ rose. Israel too was reborn (newly created). Insofar as Christ identifies himself with his People (Matt 25:40; Acts 9:4), his "regeneration" has implications for them (palingenesia, Matt 19:28). In and through Christ, one covenant People has died and rose. In lieu of supersessionism, it is better to speak of "superinsessionism" (a term I have coined). Supersessionism highlights the element of discontinuity but hides the element of continuity. Granted, there is radical discontinuity between Christ crucified and the risen Christ. Likewise, there is radical discontinuity between exiled Israel and restored Israel. The butterfly is radically discontinuous with the catepillar. But, in each case, all the discontinuity inheres in a more fundamental continuity. Insofar as there is one Christ and one covenant partner (Israel), "supersession" is not helpful terminology. Christ and Israel -- both have been transfigured and glorified, like the burning bush ... or like precious metal baptized into the Refiner's Fire. There are not two numerically distinct entities; rather, one entity acquires a new state of glory. In Scripture, this glorification is cast in terms of a supernatural "regeneration." One does not become an Israelite by natural generation -- indeed, not all who are from Israel are Israel (Rom 9:6). Rather, one becomes an Israelite by a divine elevation (Matt 3:9), i.e., by a supernatural rebirth, by being born from above. Even Jacob was not Israel by nature. Rather, he became Israel by a grace of God, many years after natural birth. He was supernaturally filiated, adopted by grace. In this light, it is highly significant that the People of God bears the name Israel. Divine adoption, of course, is a gift that belongs to God's covenant People, who is called Israel (Rom 9:4). In this sense, no one is born an Israelite. Theologically speaking, we are all born Jacobites. That is, all who are in God's kingdom family have been "transferred" into it (Col 1:13). Becoming an Israelite always requires a God-powered, post-natal kingdom transfer. The name of this kingdom is clear from Jesus's own words: the risen and enthroned Christ shepherds and rules over the kingdom of Israel (Matt 19:28; cf. 2:6). Both the shepherd-king and the disciple-shepherds experience new glory in the "regeneration" (19:28). Insofar as the two are yoked partners, Christ and his covenant People have been reborn, regenerated, divinely elevated, and supernaturally glorified. Glory is already consummated in Christ the Head; glory is only inaugurated in the members of his Body. Since we are co-heirs with Christ, our inheritance is his, provided we remain in him (cf. Rom 8:17). Staples's work deserves deep consideration and high praise, but he could strengthen his position further by embracing Ratzinger's paradigm of fulfillment as a _triplex via_ (fundamental continuity, radical discontinuity, transcendence-completion). Supersessionism must be replaced. For grace fulfills but does not replace or abolish; it perfects but does not diminish or destroy. God-fire consumes all that is not worthy of God and all that is not compatible with divine life, holiness, and truth (i.e, death, sin, and error). But it also christifies and deifies: "As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power" (CCC 1127). In the resurrected Jesus is a picture of what resurrected Israel should be.
Can we get someone skilled in debate to make Staples argument against protestants like Dr Michael Brown? I have a pet peeve with him because he refused to help Christians, Catholics and Orthodox in Gaza unless they "abandon any form of replacement theology".
I like Stables method for the debate about Israel because it's independent of the preterist, amillennialist, dispensationalist, and even historicist eschatologies arguing backward from what they see as fulfilled. Paul saying this is happening now in his day and it's the proof in itself without some particular sign or event. It is true regardless of the destruction of the temple, true regardless of a physical return of Christ and true regardless of a zionist state in the middle east.
This is a very important interview. Saun Sonna has done his homework and is an excellent interviewer. His preparation is evident, he even challenges Dr Staples’ ideas at one point. However, in the end Saun Sonna admits “Once you have seen it, you can’t unsee it.”
One highlight is Dr. Staples’ assertion that his reading of Paul is ecumenical. Of course, he is correct that His reading is neither Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant so in that sense it is ecumenical. But will it be adopted by all branches of the Christian world? Even more interesting what will the modern Jewish world say about a Jewish Paul working to regather the tribes?
Very refreshing to see two extremely bright gentlemen discussing the bible in an intellectually honest and historically accurate second temple context.
Great work gentlemen!
This isn’t that hard to understand despite decades of many Christians missing/ or ignoring it. Jason Staples’ work is absolutely amazing! He totally gets it!! Others like
Batya Wootten and Ephraim and Rimona Frank have been at this for a long time as well. Genesis 48, all 14 chapters of Hosea, the new covenant in Jeremiah, the two sticks of Ezekiel and many other prophets of God speak of this. It’s almost too easy yet many don’t see it, ignore it, or reject it.
I came to your channel for the Jason Staples interview. Thanks!
Good interview with good questions and good length of answers without interruptions.
1:15:34 Yes, the heuristic value of this interpretation is a sign of its strength. Per Ratzinger, "From a purely scientific point of view, the legitimacy of an interpretation depends on its power to explain things. In other words, the less it needs to interfere with the sources, the more it respects the corpus as given and is able to show it to be intelligible from within, by its own logic, the more apposite such an interpretation is. Conversely, the more it interferes with the sources, the more it feels obliged to excise and throw doubt on things found there, the more alien to the subject it is. To that extent, its explanatory power is also its ability to maintain the inner unity of the corpus in question. It involves the ability to unify, to achieve a synthesis, which is the reverse of superficial harmonization. Indeed, only faith’s hermeneutic is sufficient to measure up to these criteria."
RATZINGER, JOSEPH, Behold The Pierced One: An Approach to a Spiritual Christology, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1986, 44-45.
Question: how can some claim today's judaists are in a covenant with God if they can't offer the required animal sacrifices?
Edit: I remember I somewhere read a statement from a pope or council that stated the jews who reject Jesus are no longer the seed of Abraham. If I remember correctly, that seems relevant to this discussion.
There are two main forms of Judaism today, one awaits for God to build a divine temple, aka a miracle. The other seeks to build one through decent and land stealing.
@@Elburion neither form is in a covenant with God because they have been providentially made unable by God to do the sacrifices needed to uphold the Old Covenant.
@tafazziReadChannelDescription very true. I was just pointing out that is the state of things without a temple.
a few points
they are still the people who were called out by god and given the law.
They still have the law and though the law itself doesn’t save, it still directs and points them to the one who does save that is Christ.
now its true that some of the jews are obstinately choosing to reject christ and can not see christ in the law, and so they are still trying to do the law and be righteous by the law but are unable and so they reap the curses of the law.
so in conclusion yes they are still under the old covenant. that covenant doesn’t save them nor does it justify them rather it points out their failings and puts them under the curses of the law. this need to be understood with some nuance, not every jew is a religious jew who is trying to follow the law, and not every jew today is obstinately rejecting christ.
@@zekidan8284 you didn't address the point I made. No, today's jews do not have the law. They are not enabled by God to live in the way God called their fathers to follow.
I reach this position by obse4ving that God took away their possibility to offer animal sacrifices.
I'm not talking about salvation, I'm talking strictly of the law. These judaists of today may know about the law, but they do not have it. They're larpers. That's my position.
Is your position that merely trying to do the law is enough to consider a covenant?
Could someone please use this in a debate with the protestant Michael Brown?
Jason Staples has done superb work! The title of his book is brilliant. In my view, the resurrected King is the prime analogate for the restored Kingdom. Exiled Israel has become fulfilled Israel. The catepillar has become the butterfly. This is transfiguration, not supersession. For supersession (or replacement) to take place, X must supersede (or replace) Y. But it is senseless to say that X replaces X. Accordingly, it is not proper to say that the risen Christ replaced the crucified Christ, for there are not two Jesuses. Nor is it appropriate to say that Spirit-filled Israel replaced Spirit-expecting Israel, as if these were numerically distinct. Rather, it is proper to say that Christ rose. Israel too was reborn (newly created). Insofar as Christ identifies himself with his People (Matt 25:40; Acts 9:4), his "regeneration" has implications for them (palingenesia, Matt 19:28). In and through Christ, one covenant People has died and rose.
In lieu of supersessionism, it is better to speak of "superinsessionism" (a term I have coined). Supersessionism highlights the element of discontinuity but hides the element of continuity. Granted, there is radical discontinuity between Christ crucified and the risen Christ. Likewise, there is radical discontinuity between exiled Israel and restored Israel. The butterfly is radically discontinuous with the catepillar. But, in each case, all the discontinuity inheres in a more fundamental continuity. Insofar as there is one Christ and one covenant partner (Israel), "supersession" is not helpful terminology.
Christ and Israel -- both have been transfigured and glorified, like the burning bush ... or like precious metal baptized into the Refiner's Fire. There are not two numerically distinct entities; rather, one entity acquires a new state of glory. In Scripture, this glorification is cast in terms of a supernatural "regeneration." One does not become an Israelite by natural generation -- indeed, not all who are from Israel are Israel (Rom 9:6). Rather, one becomes an Israelite by a divine elevation (Matt 3:9), i.e., by a supernatural rebirth, by being born from above.
Even Jacob was not Israel by nature. Rather, he became Israel by a grace of God, many years after natural birth. He was supernaturally filiated, adopted by grace. In this light, it is highly significant that the People of God bears the name Israel. Divine adoption, of course, is a gift that belongs to God's covenant People, who is called Israel (Rom 9:4). In this sense, no one is born an Israelite. Theologically speaking, we are all born Jacobites. That is, all who are in God's kingdom family have been "transferred" into it (Col 1:13).
Becoming an Israelite always requires a God-powered, post-natal kingdom transfer. The name of this kingdom is clear from Jesus's own words: the risen and enthroned Christ shepherds and rules over the kingdom of Israel (Matt 19:28; cf. 2:6). Both the shepherd-king and the disciple-shepherds experience new glory in the "regeneration" (19:28). Insofar as the two are yoked partners, Christ and his covenant People have been reborn, regenerated, divinely elevated, and supernaturally glorified. Glory is already consummated in Christ the Head; glory is only inaugurated in the members of his Body. Since we are co-heirs with Christ, our inheritance is his, provided we remain in him (cf. Rom 8:17).
Staples's work deserves deep consideration and high praise, but he could strengthen his position further by embracing Ratzinger's paradigm of fulfillment as a _triplex via_ (fundamental continuity, radical discontinuity, transcendence-completion). Supersessionism must be replaced. For grace fulfills but does not replace or abolish; it perfects but does not diminish or destroy. God-fire consumes all that is not worthy of God and all that is not compatible with divine life, holiness, and truth (i.e, death, sin, and error). But it also christifies and deifies: "As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power" (CCC 1127). In the resurrected Jesus is a picture of what resurrected Israel should be.
Can we get someone skilled in debate to make Staples argument against protestants like Dr Michael Brown? I have a pet peeve with him because he refused to help Christians, Catholics and Orthodox in Gaza unless they "abandon any form of replacement theology".
I like Stables method for the debate about Israel because it's independent of the preterist, amillennialist, dispensationalist, and even historicist eschatologies arguing backward from what they see as fulfilled. Paul saying this is happening now in his day and it's the proof in itself without some particular sign or event. It is true regardless of the destruction of the temple, true regardless of a physical return of Christ and true regardless of a zionist state in the middle east.