Posted on 06/08/2012 8:22:58 AM PDT by wmfights
The doctrine of supersessionism holds that the New Testament church permanently replaces or supersedes national Israel as the people of God. Those who are nonsupersessionists, however, assert the opposite. They hold that the church is not the new Israel who replaces or supersedes national Israel as the people of God.
In this article we will briefly list the major hermeneutical assumptions and theological arguments of both supersessionism and nonsupersessionism. The purpose of this article is not to evaluate the arguments of either side. We are simply listing the main arguments made by both sides in this debate.
HERMENEUTICAL ASSUMPTIONS OF SUPERSESSIONISM
1. INTERPRETIVE PRIORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT -- Supersessionists believe that Old Testament (OT) prophecies regarding Israel should be viewed through the lens of the New Testament (NT). Thus, it is believed that the NT can transcend or redefine OT promises to Israel.
2. NATIONAL ISRAEL VIEWED AS A TYPE -- Supersessionists view the church in Christ as the fulfillment of OT promises to national Israel. Thus national Israel was a type that has given way in significance to the greater antitype—the church.
3. NONLITERAL INTERPRETATION OF SOME OT TEXTS -- Supersessionists hold that OT texts that foretell physical blessings for Israel are being fulfilled in spiritual ways with the church. Allegedly, this is the case with Acts 2/Joel 2 and Acts 15/Amos 9.
THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS OF SUPERSESSIONISM
1. ISRAEL HAS BEEN REJECTED -- Matt 21:43 states that the kingdom of God was taken from the nation Israel and given to the New Testament church. This signifies a change in the people of God from national Israel to the church.
2. CHURCH IS THE NEW ISRAEL -- The NT explicitly identifies the church as “Israel” in Gal 6:16. Plus texts such as Rom 2:28–29 and 1 Pet 2:9–10 apply Israelite imagery to the church. This means the church is identified as the new Israel.
3. EQUALITY RULES OUT A RESTORATION OF ISRAEL -- Jews and Gentiles are now united. Thus there can be no special identity or role for national Israel as texts like Eph 2:11–22 and Rom 11:17–24 show.
4. CHURCH INHERITS THE NEW COVENANT -- The New Covenant was made withIsrael, but the NT says the church is participating in the New Covenant (Heb 8:8-13). Thus, the church is the new Israel since it is experiencing the fulfillment of the covenant.
HERMENEUTICAL ASSUMPTIONS OF NONSUPERSESSIONISM
1. OT TEXTS VIEWED AS STARTING POINT -- Yes the NT shines light on the OT but the starting point for OT texts must be the OT texts themselves understood within their historical and grammatical contexts. The NT does not change the meaning of OT promises toIsrael. To do so violates the meaning of God’s earlier revelation.
2. UNCONDITIONAL PROMISES CANNOT BE CANCELED -- If God unconditionally promises a restoration of national Israel, the NT would not revoke this promise. To do so would lead to contradictions within Scripture.
3. NATIONAL ISRAEL NOT A TYPE -- The fact that the NT reaffirms a future for Israelmeans that Israel cannot be a type whose significance has been overtaken by the NT church.
4. OT PROMISES CAN HAVE DOUBLE FULFILLMENT -- OT promises can have a present fulfillment/application with the church and a future fulfillment with national Israel in the future. This is the case with Acts 2/Joel 2 and Acts 15/Amos 9.
THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS OF NONSUPERSESSIONISM
1. ISRAEL AND CHURCH DISTINCT -- Of the 73 references to “Israel” in the NT, none identify the church as Israel. The “Israel of God” reference in Gal 6:16 is referring to Christian Jews. Other passages like 1 Pet 2:9-10 show similarities between Israel and the church, but similarity does not mean sameness.
2. NT AFFIRMS FUTURE A FOR ISRAEL -- The NT explicitly reaffirms a future restoration of national Israel. This is what Jesus taught in Matt. 19:28 and what the apostles clearly believed in Acts 1:6. Paul also explicitly taught a national salvation and restoration ofIsrael in Rom 11:25-27.
3. EQUALITY NOT RULE OUT FUNCTIONAL DISTINCTIONS -- When it comes to salvation and spiritual blessings, believing Jews and Gentiles are equal. This unity and equality, however, does not rule out historical and functional distinctions between the groups. Nor does it mean that there cannot be a distinct role for national Israel in the future. Thus, Eph 2:11-22 and Rom 11:17-24 are not inconsistent with nonsupersessionism.
4. NEW COVENANT FULFILLED WITH ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH -- The New Covenant has a present fulfillment/application with the church (Heb 8:8-13); but, there will also be a future fulfillment of the covenant with national Israel in the future (Rom 11:27). Thus when it comes to the New Covenant, the fulfillment is “both/and.” It is for both Israel and the church.
Ping
Thanks for the ping!
Concur completely with everything you said, but I think the egg came before the chicken -— replacement theologians can trace their roots to anti-semitism.
The pagan Romans, et al, already hated the Jews and replacement theology was a convenient way to justify the hate.
“Supersecessionists” or “replacement theologians” were predicted by Christ Himself in Rev. 3:9-—
“Behold, I will cause those of THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN, WHO SAY THAT THEY ARE JEWS, AND ARE NOT, but lie—behold, I will make them to come and bow down at your feet and to know that I have loved you .”
Thus, according to supersessionism, the Jews are either no longer considered to be God's Chosen people, or their proper calling is frustrated pending their acceptance of Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah.
Critics of a complete replacement theory, the first alternative just mentioned, might reason that the "chosenness" of the gentile believers in the Messiah is an engrafting into the promises made to Israel. If the Jews can be rejected, then the chosenness of the Church is also reversible (were the Church to reject God), since its basis is in the former. However, if the election of the Christian Church is not reversible, then neither is the election of Israel, which is its basis.
The traditional form of supersessionism does not theorize a replacement; instead it argues that Israel has been superseded only in the sense that the Church has been entrusted with the fulfillment of the promises of which Jewish Israel is the trustee. All Western Christian sects and denominations have held some version of this belief, which has served not only as the explanation for why believers in Christ should not become Jews, but is also the rationale for attempting the conversion of Jews to Christianity. However, since The Enlightenment, a growing minority of Christians have questioned this doctrine.
In the 20th century certain hierarchs of the Roman Catholic Church issued a number of theological position papers which appear to reject this concept outright, and affirm that the Torah is a valid path for Jews to achieve salvation, that their covenant with God is still valid, and that the Jews of modern times are a direct unbroken continuation of the ancient Children of Israel. This view is not accepted by all Catholic theologians, and it is rejected outright by traditional Catholics though it has been reaffirmed several times by various Catholic hierarchs. The Catholic Church still proclaims Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and recently affirmed the necessity of Jesus for salvation in the declaration Dominus Jesus. However, although salvation comes from the Church, the current teaching of some hierarchs is that persons outside the Church, and particularly the Jews, can receive salvation through the semina verbi contained in their religious traditions.
Several liberal Protestant Christian groups have formally renounced supersessionism, and affirm that Jews, and perhaps other non-Christians, have a valid way to find God within their own faith. In addition, many fundamentalist Christian groups, including conservative Evangelical Protestants and Anabaptists, have renounced replacement theology, though these groups still hold that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to God (citing usually John 14:6). Other conservative and fundamentalist Christian groups hold supersessionism to be valid and replacement theories are sometimes held, however, and the debate continues.
Conservative Christian groups that reject supersessionism usually believe in dispensations and hold that at a future time God will return his focus to the Jewish nation, citing Romans 11.
I can understand how this could happen. Supersessionism (Replacement Theology) holds that the church has replaced Israel. If this is true then Christians should occupy Jerusalem not the Jews. We should rebuild the Temple. We should not let the Jews occupy our Holy City.
Obviously, I don't believe this and I believe most Christians see the error of this thinking.
The master of a vineyard grew a tame olive tree, but in time it grew old and began to decay. In hopes of saving it he pruned it, dug the ground and nourished it. In time some new branches appeared, but the top of the tree began to perish. So the master of the vineyard instructed his servant to cut off the decayed branches, and replace them with grafts of wild olives. Meanwhile, natural branches of the tree were transplanted to other parts of the vineyard. In time the original tree, now with wild olive branches grafted onto it, grew to give good fruit. Those natural branches of the original tree that were transplanted into poor soil also grew to give good fruit. However, a natural branch of the original tree that was transplanted into good soil grew to give a mix of good and poor fruit. The master of the vineyard instructed his servant to cut off the branches of this tree that gave poor fruit, and burn them. However, the servant suggested to that master that with further care this tree too might bring forth good fruit. And so the master and his servant worked diligently at nourishing all the trees.
After a long time the master and servant returned to the vineyard, and found that all trees, both the original and the transplants, had failed, and had all grown only poor fruit. Bitterly disappointed, "the Lord of the vineyard wept, and said unto the servant: What could I have done more for my vineyard?" (Jacob 5:41). The master determined to burn all the trees in the vineyard, since all had given only evil fruit. Again the servant begged for clemency, and the master was persuaded, being reluctant to lose the vineyard he loved so much. The master decided to cut out those branches of wild olives that he had grafted onto the original tree that gave the most bitter fruit, and replace them with branches from the daughter trees that had grown from the previously transplanted cuttings. The master hoped that by bringing the branches and roots of the original tree back together, they would grow good fruit.
The master and his servants worked hard in the vineyard. They cut out the branches that brought forth evil fruit and burnt them, and pruned and nourished the trees, and dug the ground. After much hard work, there was no longer any bad fruit in the vineyard. "And it came to pass that when the Lord of the vineyard saw that his fruit was good, and that his vineyard was no more corrupt, he called up his servants, and said unto them: Behold, for this last time have we nourished my vineyard; and thou beholdest that I have done according to my will; and I have preserved the natural fruit, that it is good, even like as it was in the beginning. And blessed art thou; for because ye have been diligent in laboring with me in my vineyard, and have kept my commandments, and have brought unto me again the natural fruit, that my vineyard is no more corrupted, and the bad is cast away, behold ye shall have joy with me because of the fruit of my vineyard." (Jacob 5:75).
The parable ends with a warning from the master of the vineyard that the next time the vineyard grows poor fruit, he will simply gather in the good fruit, throw away the poor fruit, and set the vineyard to flames.
The old trees being Judaism, and the young trees being Christianity.
It is super-important to make a clear distinction between The Kingdom of Heaves and The Kingdom of God to fully comprehend any of this.
Argument against Supercessionism:
Israel has returned to the land.
Settles it for me.
Argument against Supercessionism:
Israel has returned to the land.
Settles it for me.
In regards to this topic I don’t know what the truth is, nor do I care much as it does not affect my salvation.
Fair enough.
One thing to consider when discounting the discussion of eschatology is the amount of prophesy and end times discussed in Scripture. Also, the last teaching of the Disciples prior to Jesus being taken and crucified was on the end times.
Arguments over who is "Israel", though, seem wasteful and wrong. It doesn't matter. There's nothing we can do to affect that either way.
The best we can do is believe and follow. God will do for us what He wants.
Are you saying that supersessionists believe Israel will be saved and the covenants that God made will be fulfilled? If so, how do you reconcile this belief with amillenialism. In amillenialism there is no 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ, instead the church (which one?) converts the world and presents a Christian world to the returning Jesus Christ.
I found that trying to understand The Revelation of Jesus Christ became very clear when I recognized that Christians and Israel are 2 distinct entities. I spent many years trying to figure out how this book was all about Christians, but when I saw that it is really about God converting Israel it made a lot of sense.
Do you know what that looks like on a 40 inch monitor? :O)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.