Thanks, Anthony. Sadly, many including Wright and Stott know better than the One who wrote those words. . . . .

One of the most encouraging things to me, in regard to Christian fellowship here in this present age, is to learn of the salvation of an Israelite! May we all have the mind of Christ towards the entire house of Israel – “…whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40), and towards Jerusalem – “…Pray for the peace of Jerusalem…” (cf. Psalm 122).

The 11th chapter of Romans seems to address the present condition of the nation of Israel, and the proper Christian attitude towards her, and towards the grace that is being shown to the Gentiles. In light of what Paul writes there, it’s very difficult for me to see where some of the most influential Christians of these “last days” got their hardness of heart towards God’s chosen people (…salvation is from the Jews.” John 4:22). “Heavenly Father, forgive me for the sinfulness in my own heart of which I am unaware. In Jesus’ name I pray.”

How sad. But it just goes to show how important it is to ask questions when exploring the deeper issues of faith. What did these guys believe? We base so much of our lives on their teachings, yet few of us really know their beliefs in detail. Maybe God is calling us to grow up a little and really get to know where we've come from, and where we really want to go, on the main road of faith.

Luther is sadly held in high regard, but not in all quarters!
While at Theological College I asked 3 of my Professors if any of the "Church Fathers" and such were NOT anti-Semites. Their unaninmous answer? "They all were". Which of course has me wondering why people still read them. . . .

Oh dear. It wasn't great entertainment for you, then. :-(

Sorry about that. But you are ahead of me. I was just out at the bank, post office, etc and thought to myself, 'I must inspect Tom Wright's paper thoroughly'. So I shall do that and see where you feel he has let the side down, so to speak. I am aware that some of the so-called 'giants of faith' have not had a generous view of the Jewish people. Interesting, isn't it, that Luther is held in such high regard, yet he didn't like the Jews and he was the first person in hundreds of years to divorce faith from good works.

Tom Wright espouses a form of "Replacement" which is commonly called "Fulfillment" teaching. It is at its core the same as other brands of "G-d has finished with the Jewish people as a distinct people". I reject it wholly.
While it is true that there is some truth in what Wright has written in this particular paper, his basic position is that "G-d has finished with the Jewish people as a distinct people".
In my view that position is informed by an age-old racist view. It has been put very sweetly by Chrysostom, who wrote "G-d hates the Jews and it is the duty of every Christian also to hate the Jews". Luther wrote that "the Synagogue is worse than a brothel. . " Other well known Christians over the last 1900 years have written similarly. Justin Martyr, writing to a Jewish man, wrote "the Scriptures are ours, not yours".
However, just because a huge proportion of Christian teachers have taken such positions, does not mean that the position is right. While it is true that Aquinis, Luther, Origen, Tertullian, Calvin, Wright, Stott, Eusebius and many others have held to a position that is essentially racist (strong word), it is not the only position held by Christians, some of whom actually appreciate us Jews. For example David Pawson, Tony Higton, Derek Prince and others in recent times; Spurgeon, Booth, Wilberforce, Shaftesbury, John Owen and others held to a position which is diametrically opposed to that of Wright, Stott, Luther and so on.
Further observations on Wright's paper?
At best his position that Yeshua has ended The Almighty's promises to Israel and the Jewish people is drivel.
At worst, it has its root in the racism of Luther, Aquinis and numerous Popes.
There are only 2 options:
1. God keeps His promises to Jewish people, in which case Wright &c are wrong.
2. G-d doesn't keep His promises to Jewish people, in which case the creator of the universe is not trustworthy . . . . .

I see what you are saying. Personally, I would be careful about being too specific in drawing fresh meanings from scripture. I would take them as general inspirational and motivational messages, to help us all to see beyond our often-too-specific church walls. I would always advocate reaching out to Jewish people! In my previous place of employment, a community college, one of my closest colleagues was a Jew. I actually learned much from hearing about her family's traditions. For instance, I learned that Christmas is such a miserly festival when compared to Hanukkah - with the exchange of gifts every night for a whole week! But I digress. Back to our main point, may I direct you to a very interesting paper by Tom Wright on this wider subject of the meanings of Israel and Jerusalem? If I give you the link, perhaps we could both come back to this forum later, or another day, with further observations? The link is - http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jerusalem_New_Testament.pdf

Hello, Clive. To a point, yes. It's difficult, though. Most of my lecturers at Theological College held a varying forms of "Replacement / Succession / Supercession" thinking. It is easy to go from "models" to a "New Israel" thinking. What for some started well, ended with "therefore we are (the Church) are now Israel". Learn form principles, yes. However we get into trouble when, for instance, people say "Start at Jerusalem, then to Samaria and to the ends of the earth. So we start in (e.g.) Manchester, then move to Liverpool. . . " when the passage was very specific, that they should start in Jerusalem . . . The people who would advocate a "start in Glasgow, then Perth . ." type of thought have no intention of ever actually going to a Jewish person, much less Jerusalem. Yet they atempt to appropriate some of ther language for their own ends. Sorry, ranting again. Maybe it's a sensitivity as I am a Messianic Jew. . . .

Yes of course. I know exactly what you are saying. Can't we also see Bible people and places as models to follow, as well?

Clive, No the Land is not "wherever people are". It is Israel. The Bible really is specific. Where the Bible says "Israel" it means just that. Where the Bible says "Jerusalem" it means just that. The Almighty is clever enough to say what He means.

A constant theme in scripture - particularly in the Old Testament - seems to be 'God, the people, the land'. Usually the land is Israel. But prophetically, the land is also wherever the people are. I remember being at a worship conference. It was approaching Christmas time. I left the hotel for a breath of fresh, cold air. On the high street were two men, each of them trying to reach the seasonal shoppers. One man was in a suit, holding a Bible aloft, and preaching at the passers-by. People walked around him, even pulling their children away, clearly concerned about this evangelist. Further down the street, the other man was in a kilt, playing a merry tune on bagpipes, and children were dancing around him. That really made me think. I was watching a sermon on something even deeper than cultural engagement.