[wmfights]

For the most part, Augustine’s supersessionist views were not original. In fact, they were mostly consistent with the patristic tradition that preceded him. Augustine’s most original contribution regarding Israel and the church, however, can be found in his reasons for Israel’s continued existence. During Augustine’s time, the existence of the Jews and Judaism posed an apologetic problem for the church. If the church was the new Israel, for what purpose did national Israel exist?

[wmfights]

Ping

2nd in a series on Supersessionism.

[wmfights]

Ping

2nd in a series on Supersessionism.

[count-your-change]

“If the church was the new Israel, for what purpose did national Israel exist?”

An equally good question would be why what was left of that nation of Israel should not be left? The temple had been destroyed and was not going to be rebuilt so a national place of worship no longer existed, hence no priestly services as the Law demanded. No one to sit on the throne as head of a civil government.

Jesus had said, “Your house is abandoned to you”, and that had occurred so what more was needed to demonstrate the rejection of that nation for their rejection of Jehovah or Yahweh?

[the_daug]

Augustine’s supersessionist views would be shaken had he been around 1948.

[Lee N. Field]

Have you read any Augustine? Just wondering.

[avenir]

Not knocking Augustine, but I’d rather read Apostle Paul on the Jews myself. He explains the situation quite well in Romans.