Replies

It is easy to say that, but the longer i live the more i see that overall good men can have blind spots (including early Reformers), or (in this case i think) in their noble endeavor to reconcile Bible texts, they come to wrong conclusions.

But then again, while allowing that in this case, i do not know of any that i esteem as classic Bible commentators (Henry, Clarke, Barnes, Gill, etc.) who hold to Supersessionism.

Though this has not been a major area of debate for me, I do see Roman 11 as most clearly teaching that the Lord will “reverse the curse” (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/israel-chosenorforgotten.html), so that the eyes of the remaining Jews come to faith in the last days (which the RC catechism also speaks of briefly). Further research on views supplies the below excerpts by JEREMY P. ROBERTS
of SOUTHEASTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY (http%3A%2F%2Fjeremyroberts.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F02%2Froberts-jeremy-research-paper-for-john-s-hammett.pdf)

Patristic Era (A. D. 100–451)
Supersessionism first arose after the revolt of the Bar Kochba in A.D. 135.11 Second century Christians such as Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, and the Letter of Barnabas expressed this process of beliefs.12

It became the predominant viewpoint of the Christian Church.13 Chrysostom, Origen and Augustine were other contributors to the surge of supersessionism. Chrysostom, in the fourth century, complained that the Jews were always perversely out of step with the times, disobeying the Mosaic Law while it was in force and cleaving it after being annulled.14 Origen perceived in unbelieving Israel the unfolding of a benign providence that was ultimately directed to the redemption of Jew and Gentile alike.15
Augustine purported an influential stance by arguing that God preserved the Jews in existence for the sake of their unwilling testimony to Christian faith. The Jews honored the Old Testament by demonstrating that it was no forgery of the church, but legitimate prophecy that predicted long ago the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the rise of the spiritual church.16
The contributions of Chrysostom, Origen and Augustine resulted in the preservation of Christian theology in a backhanded fashion with a limited theological rationale for the continued existence of the Jewish people.17 Despite being “superseded in principle and besieged in fact,” carnal Israel was given the opportunity to exist within Christendom because of its incontrovertible connection to the God of Christian confession, the God of Israel.18

Medieval Era (A. D. 452–1517)
In the Medieval Era, art portrays the split of supersessionism and dispensationalism.19 At Reims Cathedral, a sculpture depicts a crowned Ecclesia while another shows a defeated and blindfolded Synagoga.20 At Notre Dame de Paris, another sculpture of a fallen Synagogue exists.

The Synagogue is depicted as a blindfolded woman whose torso is slumping and crown is shattered. “The staff she is holding in her left hand is broken while the five books of Torah are about to slip from her right hand.”21 Grover Zinn explains the anti-Semitic nature of this art, and describes it as “one of the most shocking portrayals of Judaism in European cathedrals.22

6
Many theologians in the Medieval Era accepted supersessionism as a “given.”23 Thomas Aquinas, one of the prominent Medieval Era theologians, purported a long-standing contribution of supersessionism theology. Hood notes that Aquinas “served as a major conduit of the traditional Christian view of the Jews for some seven hundred years.”24

Reformation Era (A. D. 1517–1648)
Throughout the Reformation era, supersessionism was approached with mixed views. Luther espoused a punitive supersessionist stance while Calvin supported a mild form of supersessionism.29 The predominant theological stance gleaned from this era is Reformed theology. Olevianus exerted considerable influence on the shape of Reformed theology.30 As a teacher and pastor in Heidelberg and Herborn he influenced hundreds of students who reflected his theological stances of Calvinism and supersessionism.31 Olevianus penned a German exposition of covenant theology, Gnadenbund Gottes, published in 1595.32

Huldrych Zwingli is another theologian from the Reformation era who influenced the progression of supersessionism. His message spoke especially to the urban middling and lower classes.33 Zwingli, combating Anabaptism, set forth his beliefs in supersessionism, which were later taught by Heinrich Bullinger and other Swiss reformers. His instrumentality in laying the foundation for supersessionism pushed it into continued popularity despite its mixed views by others during this era.

Modern Era (A. D. 1648–1950)
Karl Barth (1886–1968) played a crucial role in the relationship of the Church and Israel. Barth’s hermeneutical vista stems from his understanding of election. Seeing an essential unity between the Synagogue and the Church, Barth views Jesus as the “elect one,” but what is elected in Christ is a community with a two-fold form: Israel and the Church.34 Barth states that “Israel is the people of the Jews which resists its election; the Church is the gathering of Jews and Gentiles called on the ground of its election.”35..

History of Dispensationalism When examining the history of dispensationalism, a typical statement goes like this: “Dispensationalism was formulated by one of the nineteenth-century separatist movements, the Plymouth Brethren.”47 A statement such as this implies two charges: [1]

Dispensationalism is recent, and is therefore unorthodox; [2] It was born out of a movement of separatists and should be shunned.48 The implication of such charges is one of prejudicial theological hubris.

Ryrie explicates an example of this when quoting Daniel Fuller: Ignorance is bliss, and it may well be that this popularity [of dispensationalism] would not be so great if the adherents of this system knew the historical background of what they touch. Few indeed realize that the teaching of Chafer came from Scofield, who in turn got it through the writings of Darby and the Plymouth Brethren.49...

George Ladd argues that sources are not available to prove the existence of dispensational thought prior to Darby and Kelly.51 Ladd, however, is mistaken. Sources are available. Arnold E. Ehlert wrote “A Bibliography of Dispensationalism” before Ladd was born—the sources were available to him.52

….Irenaeus (130–200) also held to dispensational concepts. His analysis of the reason for only four gospels explicates his theology of periods (or dispensations). The periods he references are [1] prior to the deluge, under Adam; [2] after the deluge, under Noah; [3] giving of the law, under Moses; [4] raising and bearing men upon the wings of the Gospel into the heavenly kingdom.55

Another example of dispensational concepts in Christian history is from Clement of Alexandria (150–220). He distinguished three patriarchal dispensations (in Adam, Noah, and Abraham) as well as the Mosaic.56 Samuel Hansen Coxe’s sevenfold dispensational theme stems from Clement’s fourfold one.57.

Before Darby Dispensational concepts were touted before Darby by authors such as Pierre Poiret, John Edwards, and Isaac Watts. Also called “Developing Dispensationalism,” this period of time gave greater momentum to dispensational thought before it became a system.

Pierre Poiret (1646–1719) wrote a six volume magnus opus entitled L’OEconimie Divine that began as a development of the doctrine of predestination, but it expanded into a systematic theology text that encompasses Calvinism, premillenialism, and dispensationalism.58 Ryrie, Lewis, and Ehlert all agree that Poiret’s work is a genuine dispensational scheme.59 Ehlert explains Poiret’s scheme in the following manner: He [Poiret] uses the phrase “period or dispensation” and his seventh dispensation is a literal thousand-year millennium with Christ returned and reigning in bodily form upon the earth with His saints, and Israel re-gathered and converted. He sees the overthrow of corrupt Protestantism, the rise of Antichrist, the two resurrections, and many of the general run of end-time events.60

John Edwards’ (1637–1716) “three great ‘Catholic and Grand Oeceonomies’” serve as “the beginnings of dispensationalism in its larger sense.”61 Edwards’ dispensational scheme was as follows: I. Innocency and Felicity, or Adam created upright II. Sin and misery, Adam fallen III.

Reconciliation, or Adam recovered, from Adam’s redemption to the end of the world A. Patriarchal economy 1. Adamical, antediluvian 2. Noahical 3. Abrahamick B. Mosaical C. Gentile (concurrent with A and B)

D. Christian or Evangelical 1. Infancy, primitive period, past 2. Childhood, present period 3. Manhood, future (millennium) 4. Old age, from the loosing of Satan to the conflagration62

Isaac Watts (1674–1748) also served as an author prior to Darby who expressed dispensational concepts in his writings. He recognized dispensations as conditional ages wherein God had expectations of men. The following is Watts’ definition of dispensations: The public dispensations of God towards men are those wise and holy constitutions of his will and government, revealed or some way manifested to them, in the several successive periods or ages of the world, wherein are contained the duties which he expects from men, and the blessings which he promises, or encourages them to expect from him, here and hereafter; together with the sins which he forbids, and the punishments which he threatens to inflict on such sinners, or the dispensations of God may be described more briefly, as the appointed moral rules of God’s dealing with mankind, considered as reasonable creatures, and as accountable to him for their behaviour, both in this world and in that which is to come.63

Watts’ outline of dispensationalism is the exact same as that in the Scofield Reference Bible excluding the Millennium (he did not consider it to be a dispensation). This proves that Scofield viewed Watts’ writings to be so foundational to dispensationalism that he used Watts’ outline on the subject instead of Darby’s.

Systematized Dispensationalism John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) was a leader of the Plymouth Brethren in Great Britain where he, according to virtually all investigators, was the systematizer of modern dispensationalism.64 Born into a well-to-do Irish family, the son of a landowner and merchant, Darby benefited from his privileged upbringing and became an excellent student. After attending Trinity College, Dublin, in 1819, he forsook a career in law for the Anglican Church, where he served as an ordained priest. 65

After less than five years serving the Anglican Church, Darby “left the encumbrance of ecclesiastical tradition” and joined a free church in Dublin called the “Brethren.”66 After traveling to Switzerland, France, Germany and Italy, Darby returned to England where dissension was severing the Brethren, so he formed the “circle of fellowship” to restrict those outside his doctrinal beliefs.
Darby eventually traveled to North America to spread his dispensational theology. North Americans were open to his teaching.

Among the many new dispensationalists swayed by Darby was, probably his single most important convert, a lawyer named Cyrus Ingersoll Scofield (1843–1921). Scofield, in turn, led his single most important convert, Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1951), to propagate dispensationalism to the extent where Chafer eventually founded Dallas Theological Seminary—the flagship academic institution for dispensationalism.67

Although Darby is an extremely important person in the history of dispensationalism, he is not the originator of such a theology. Scofield did not parrot Darby’s pattern of teachings—he instead parroted Watts.69

As a result of the growth of dispensationalism through the years, from concepts to a systematized stance, it now serves as the predominant view.70 Definitions and the historicity of both sides of this eschatological debate have been extrapolated. In order to refute common continuity arguments against the relationship of Israel and the church, the variations of the arguments necessitate clarification.

Variations within Supersessionism Punitive Also known as “retributive supersessionism,” the punitive variation emphasizes that God has rejected the Jews because they first rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Emphasis is placed on Israel’s disobedience and the consequence of God’s punishment. Divine interventions took place in A.D.
70 and A.D. 135 that served as a political way for God to abandon Israel for her disbelief in Jesus as the Christ. In order to fill this void left by Israel, the Church served as the process of continuation. God disinherited Israel in order to serve as a form of punishment for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah and they have been replaced by a new Israel—the Church of the New Testament....

Economic The economic variation is even more potent than punitive supersessionism. Arguing that from the beginning, God’s purpose for unrepentant Israel in the economy of salvation was destined to see fulfillment completed by the coming of Jesus, after which the Church was to take its place.75

In the economic sphere, God always planned on replacing Israel as an ethnic group with the church as an all-encompassing people. Within this variation, national Israel corresponds to Christ’s church in a prefigurative and carnal way.76.

Structural Structural supersessionism refers to the ordo salutis. Taking the form of “creation-fallredemption-new creation,” the structural variation is present whenever the Old Testament does not determine Christology.77 As opposed to punitive and economic supersessionism, the structural variation is less of a theological position pertaining to Israel and more of a transition in hermeneutics with the Jewish Scriptures...

Dualistic Dualistic supersessionists believe the church is the new Israel, but there is still a future for national Israel.83 Church history documents this moderate adherence to supersessionism.

Tertullian declared that the church overcame Israel as the people of God and Israel was “divorced” by God while also encouraging Christians to “rejoice” at the coming “restoration of Israel.”84 In the Middle Ages, John Y. B. Hood asserted, “. . . Christians believed Jews would eventually accept Christ and be saved, but they also saw them as dangerous infidels who had been rejected and punished by God.”85

Refuting All Variations within Supersessionism A refutation of each of the three variations of supersessionism will lead to a conclusive refutation of supersessionism as a whole. Punitive, economic, and structural supersessionism each have unique angles of improper logic and hermeneutics...