The Importance of Supersessionism to Theology

In recent years, a greater awareness of the relationship between supersessionism and the major categories of Christian theology has developed. R. Kendall Soulen, for example, points out that current perceptions toward supersessionism are “fraught with profound implications for the whole range of Christian theological reflection.”[i] Craig A. Blaising asserts that issues related to supersessionism affect the doctrines of God, anthropology, Christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.[ii] Although it is beyond the purpose of this work to examine fully how supersessionism relates to all aspects of Christian theology, a brief sketch of this relationship will highlight the importance of the supersessionist view to theology.

Supersessionism has implications for the doctrine of God because God is described in Scripture as “the God of Israel” and the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”[iii] What do these titles mean and what are their implications for national Israel and the church? Clark M. Williamson tries to make a connection between supersessionism and the doctrine of God when he claims that supersessionism has led the church to an idea of God that is closer to Greek thought than to the biblical concept of God: “Because the Christian tradition de-Judaized itself and interpreted itself as both anti- and better-than Jewish, its classical doctrine of God tells us more about pre-Christian, Greek understandings of God than about the living, covenantal God of the Bible.”[iv]

Supersessionism is important to Christology since it affects the significance given to Jesus’ Jewishness and the Jewish titles he carried such as “Messiah” and “Son of David.” Blaising, for instance, believes that supersessionism has not given proper significance to the Jewishness of Jesus:

One of the most obvious effects of supersessionism in traditional Christology is the effacement of the Jewishness of Jesus from Christian confession. It is remarkable that the great creeds and confessions of the faith are silent on this point, being satisfied simply with the affirmation of Christ’s humanity. However, in Scripture, not only the Jewishness of Jesus, but his Davidic lineage are central features of the gospel.[v]

Others, too, have linked Christology to supersessionism. According to Williamson, “Jesus Christ is . . . the ‘hinge’ upon which the replacement of Jews with Gentile Christians turns.”[vi] James Carroll asserts that, “A new Christology, faithfully based in the Scriptures . . . will in no way support supersessionism.”[vii] These statements by Blaising, Williamson, and Carroll, regardless of their accuracy, highlight the importance of supersessionism to the doctrine of Christology.

In the last century, several churches and denominations have reacted strongly against supersessionism. This reaction has implications for the doctrine of soteriology. Some Christians, in their opposition to supersessionism, have asserted that Jews can be in a right relationship with the God of Israel without placing their faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, some Christians have adopted what is known as “two-covenant theology.” According to this perspective, ethnic Jews are redeemed through their faithfulness to Torah while the mostly Gentile church is accepted by God on the basis of Jesus Christ’s redeeming work.[viii] Eric Gritsch, for example, in a publication of the Lutheran Council in the USA, states that there is no longer any need for a Christian mission to Jews:

There really is no need for any Christian mission to the Jews. They are and remain the people of God, even if they do not accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah. Why this is so only God knows. Christians should concentrate their missionary activities on those who do not yet belong to the people of God, and they should court them with a holistic witness in word and deed rather than with polemical argument and cultural legislation. The long history of Christian anti-Semitism calls for repentance, not triumphalist claims of spiritual superiority.[ix]

In this case, a particular reaction against supersessionism has a bearing on the issue of Christian particularity and what Jews must believe to have a relationship with God.

Supersessionism has an important connection to ecclesiology[x] because it affects how one views the identity of the church and its members. Supersessionists assert that the church is now the true Israel and that its members are the true Jews. Supersessionists also view the church as fulfilling God’s covenants originally made with national Israel. In addition, supersessionism influences how one views the role and mission of the church. According to Edmund P. Clowney, who holds a supersessionist perspective, “This understanding of the church as the new and true Israel in Christ must inspire our mission in the contemporary world.”[xi]

Along with ecclesiology, eschatology is the area of doctrine most closely related to supersessionism. With supersessionism there is no expectation concerning a future restoration of national Israel. Thus, there is to be no return of national Israel to its land, no temple, and no special role of service for Israel to the nations. Instead, many of the Old Testament expectations are fulfilled spiritually in the church.

Blaising argues that supersessionism fits “hand in hand” with a “spiritual-vision eschatology” in which “earthly life” is viewed “as a symbol of spiritual realities.”[xii] Because a literal restoration of national Israel “would demand a national and political reality in the eschaton” supersessionism coincides with the spiritual-vision eschatology model in “denying a future for Israel.”[xiii] The spiritual vision eschatology model, according to Blaising, is contrasted with “new creation eschatology” in which the physical aspects of the eschaton are given more consideration.[xiv] Those who hold to this latter eschatological model are more likely to posit a future for national Israel.

Issues related to supersessionism have become even more significant in light of events of the last century. The Holocaust, the establishment of the modern state of Israel, and controversies in the Middle East between Jews and Arabs have pushed questions and issues concerning supersessionism to the forefront of theological discussions. Commenting on the significance of the Holocaust and the establishment of the state of Israel, Soulen states, “Under the new conditions created by these events, Christian churches have begun to consider anew their relation to the God of Israel and the Israel of God in the light of the Scriptures and the gospel about Jesus.”[xv] This consideration includes a “revisiting [of] the teaching of supersessionism after nearly two thousand years.”[xvi]

The acceptance or rejection of supersessionism may also influence how one views the modern state of Israel and events in the Middle East. Timothy P. Weber, for example, has documented how evangelical dispensationalists, who reject supersessionism, have had a significant impact on how many Americans view Israel.[xvii] These dispensationalists, who believe Israel will one day believe in Jesus Christ and possess the land of Palestine, have offered significant moral and financial support to Israel. In return, significant Israeli leaders have embraced the support of evangelical dispensationalists.[xviii] According to Weber, “The close tie between evangelicals and Israel is important: it has shaped popular opinion inAmerica and, to some extent, U.S. foreign policy.”[xix]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), x.

[ii] Craig A. Blaising, “The Future of Israel as a Theological Question,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 44:3 (2001): 443–50.

[iii] Williamson writes, “The God of Jesus Christ is the God of Israel, of Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Moses, David. Because the Father of Jesus Christ is the God of Israel, Israel is connected with our faith in God; the connection with the people Israel is part of the church’s proclamation of its faith in God. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms the identity of the God of the church with the God of Israel.” Clark M. Williamson, A Guest in the House of Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 44.

[vii] James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001), 587. See also Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions, trans. Margaret Kohl (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990), 28–37.

[viii] For a detailed explanation of two-covenant theology see Michael G. Vanlaningham, “Christ, the Savior of Israel: The ‘Sonderweg’ and Bi-covenantal Controversies in Relation to the Epistles of Paul” (Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1997).

[ix] Eric W. Gritsch, “Luther and the Jews: Toward a Judgment of History,” in Luther and the Jews(n.p.: Lutheran Council in the USA, 1995), 9.

[x] Diprose views supersessionism as being especially relevant to the areas of ecclesiology and eschatology. See Ronald E. Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought (Rome: Istituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, 2000), 4.

[xi] Edmund P. Clowney, The Church. Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995), 163.

[xvii] Timothy P. Weber, “How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend,” Christianity Today(October 5, 1998): 39–49.

[xviii] Weber gives the example of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to the Voices United for Israel Conference in Washington D.C. in April of 1998. Most of the three thousand attendees at the conference were evangelical dispensationalists. According to Weber, Netanyahu stated, “We have no greater friends and allies than the people sitting in this room.” Weber, “How Evangelicals BecameIsrael’s Best Friend,” 39.

Clark M. Williamson tries to make a connection between supersessionism and the doctrine of God when he claims that supersessionism has led the church to an idea of God that is closer to Greek thought than to the biblical concept of God: “Because the Christian tradition de-Judaized itself and interpreted itself as both anti- and better-than Jewish, its classical doctrine of God tells us more about pre-Christian, Greek understandings of God than about the living, covenantal God of the Bible.”[iv]

I think we see this in a variety of ways the most obvious being the creation of the myth that Mary was a virgin forever.

What has this to do with Jesus’ teaching of salvation?

Depends on what you want to get out of it. If you're happy with your personal interpretation of Jesus’ teaching of salvation, then it's basically irrelevent.

If you're studying ways to interpret Jesus’ teaching of salvation, however, then it has all sorts of ramifications - a central one being that God gives different approaches to truth depending on the time and the people. Note I didn't say different truths, but different approaches to it.

I think that one of the things that might surprise Christians is that accepting supersessionism opens the door to accepting other religions as well, as being given by God to those peoples in those areas at those times. And before you howl at this, reflect that your exact same howling is being done by Jews against you, for exactly the same reasons, when you assert Jesus's teachings supersede Mosaic law.

What is the saying? In for a penny, in for a pound.

The Torah is eternal and will never be abrogated. Every covenant in the bible is made with the nation of Israel and no other entity. There is no secondary entity with which HaShem identifies. He is the G-d of Israel. If Gentiles are in relationship with G-d, itis because they have somehow been “grafted in” to the commonwealth of Israel. There is only one bride to HaShem and that Bride is Israel. There is no mention of the “Church” in the bible. Such an entity did not exist when the bible was written. Yeshua was a Jewish rabbi and prophet, who kept the Torah perfectly and taught all of his Talmidim to do likewise. If you are his disciple then you should walk as he walked, and that walk is the way of the Torah.

There is no mention of the “Church” in the bible. Such an entity did not exist when the bible was written.

My Bible has 76 references to "church". Here's the first:

And I say also unto thee, That thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

Here's one that refers to the church in the OT:

This is he (Moses), that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with out fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us. (Acts 7:38)

If Gentiles are in relationship with G-d, it is because they have somehow been “grafted in” to the commonwealth of Israel.

But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himselve being the chief cornerstone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an inhabitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:13-22)

That's how.

This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:11,12)

Jesus.

Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus Christ

Yes, Gentiles are grafted into the vine which was originally intended for Israel, but it is only through faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ that anyone, Jew or Gentile, is on the vine at all.

Gentiles are not grafted into the "commonwealth of Israel". The physical, ethnic descendants of Abraham are the only people who belong to the "commonwealth of Israel". Gentiles can choose to participate in the New Covenant that God made with Israel, which means accepting Jesus Christ's death on the cross as payment for our sin, and can reap the spiritual blessings that that New Covenant brings, but we can never be part of the "commonwealth of Israel".

The Person of Jesus Christ fulfilled all of the prophecies for the Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures. He is your Messiah and He loves you and offers you eternal life and a place in the New Jerusalem during His earthly kingdom.

You don't have to wait for your Messiah. He has already come.

No such thing as the word “church” in scripture. It’s “ecclesia” which means "assembly" or "congregation”. God did not give an organization the authority to interpret scripture.

The English word “church” was derived from the Greek word “kyridakon” which wasn’t even used in the Greek during New Testament times and isn’t found anywhere in the New Testament. It didn’t even come into use until around the 16th century. There is no word in the New Testament which can be translated into our understanding of the word “church”. You can find the information in Brown, Colin. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.

The “ekklesia” spoken of in the New Testament is always tied to a location. Paul writes of the ekklesia te ouse en Korintho, the church which is in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:2), indicating both that it belongs to the people of the place and that it has a new and different quality. This is also true when he speaks of the ekklesia Thessalonikeon (1 Thess.1:1:).

In Revelation 2-3 Jesus addressing each of the seven churches in Asia concludes each message with statement "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the ekklēsiais (multiple separate assemblies)." If He had instituted a single governing authority He would have addressed that organization. Jesus did NOT establish a “one church” system.

In 1 Corinthians 12:27 Paul uses the correct term for the universal body of believers. “27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

There is no scriptural authority for an organizational structure or ruling body on earth for the “body of Christ”. The RCC is unscriptural in it’s usurpation of Christ’s authority over His people.

The whole concept of the use of the word “church” was only instituted for the sole purpose of supporting the hierarchal form of governance and control. It was actually started by a Protestant man named Theodore Beza who believed in the idea of a “catholic” ie universal church in 1556. Even William Tyndale's translation (1526) which was the first translation into English correctly used the term "congregation." The use of the word "church" instead of "assembly" or "congregation" came from those who had a bias towards a hierarchical and unscriptural form of church government.

“The close tie between evangelicals and Israel is important: it has shaped popular opinion inAmerica and, to some extent, U.S. foreign policy.”

I think historically America HAS been blessed because of our honoring of Israel and their place as elder brothers in the faith towards the one, true God. God's promise is "I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee." and I have seen no evidence that indicates God has or will renege on that promise. The problems we are facing today in this country, I believe, are a direct result of our dishonor of Israel as well as our national rebellion against the commandments of God, our Creator. He does promise to us what he promised to Israel in that:

if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (II Chronicles 7:14)

Though I do not have great hopes for America any longer to nationally repent, I know that, one day, Israel WILL return to the LORD, for He says:

I will accept you as fragrant incense when I bring you out from the nations and gather you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will be proved holy through you in the sight of the nations. (Ezekiel 20:41)

I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I am proved holy through you before their eyes. (Ezekiel 36:23)

No such thing as the word “church” in scripture

The word "church" appears 76 times and "churches" 36 times. But i know what you mean in spite of the word concept confusion. The word church is equivalent to assembly or congregation.

Your etymology appears messed up--its [kyriakon/kyriake] the adjectival form of [kyrios]. The word church has come to take on universality (thanks to the whore and her children) not because of any supposed underlying greek meaning.

>> The word church is equivalent to assembly or congregation.<<

No, it’s not. At least not as the English understanding of the word is. In today’s vernacular “church” can mean a building, and organization, and a hierarchy. Not one of those concepts is referred to in the New Testament. No where in scripture can you find the organized structure referred to as the “church” as the RCC is referred to as “the church”.

>> Your etymology appears messed up--its [kyriakon/kyriake] the adjectival form of [kyrios].<<

Did you actually read the post and comprehend? Your argument is with “The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology” and not with me. Tell them how “messed up” they are. They would love to hear from you as to their error and correct it I’m sure.

I could find NO Greek word "kyridakon" in any of my Greek Lexica--Liddel and Scott, 9th Edition (1996), Thayer (1885). The closest Greek word is "kyriakos,-e,-on", an adjective. This word (kyridakon) is most likely a spelling mistake propagated as only the internet can.

"church" did not derive from some so-called 16th century Greek word. "church" has a long standing position in English. Check out ANY dictionary and examine its etymology--[ME chirche < OE cirice < LGk kruriakon < Gk kuriakos, of the lord < kurios, lord]. But to put to bed that the use of "church" is of late origin, Wycliffe translated "ekklesia" as "church" (chirche) in the 14th century (1385AD), 226 years before the KJV.

When someone floats a theory based upon "the greek", I look askance at what may follow. (I have Greek and Latin credentials I am more than happy to stack up against any armchair expert in this area.) If one criticises the translation choices of the KJV scholars, he had better present some solid evidence to support his desired correction. It's usually fanciful, often amusing and erroneous.

I am not a universal churchist. On the contrary, I think it error, one with nefarious intent. However, bad scholarship weakens the argument, making it harder to promote the correct understanding of "church".

Consider this: Church, Congregation or Assembly?

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.