Posted on 05/11/2014 1:50:36 PM PDT by wmfights
Justin Martyr (A.D. 100–165) is important in the history of supersessionism because he was the first Christian writer to explicitly identify the church as “Israel.”[1] Justin declared, “For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham . . . are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ.”[2] He also said, “Since then God blesses this people [i.e., Christians], and calls them Israel, and declares them to be His inheritance, how is it that you [Jews] repent not of the deception you practise on yourselves, as if you alone were the Israel?”[3] Justin also announced that, “We, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelite race.”[4]
For Jeffrey S. Siker, “Justin is a transitional figure”[5] in the development of supersessionism. Justin does not mark the beginning of supersessionism, but he does openly advocate a replacement approach concerning Israel and the church that had been forming for nearly a century: “Justin marks the end of an era, the culmination of a process in formative Christianity that had begun much earlier.”[6] Justin’s hermeneutical approach to the Old Testament was also important in the development of supersessionism. He reapplied Old Testament promises so that the church, not Israel, was viewed as the beneficiary of its promised blessings. Justin declared to Trypho: “And along with Abraham we [Christians] shall inherit the holy land, when we shall receive the inheritance for an endless eternity, being children of Abraham through the like faith. . . . Accordingly, He promises to him a nation of similar faith, God fearing, righteous . . . but it is not you, ‘in whom is no faith.’”[7] Siker adds, “According to Justin, the patriarchal promises do not apply to the Jews; rather, God has transferred these promises to the Christians and . . . to Gentile Christians in particular.”[8]
[1] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 11, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950–51), 1:200. See also, 1:261, 267. Peter Richardson has observed that the first explicit identification of the church as “Israel” was made by Justin Martyr in A.D. 160. See Peter Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1.
[2] Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 11, ANF 1:200.
[3] Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 123, ANF 1:261. He also says, “Those who were selected out of every nation have obeyed His will through Christ . . . must be Jacob and Israel.” (1:265).
[4] Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 135, ANF 1:267.
[5] Jeffrey S. Siker, Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 15.
[6] Ibid., 16.
[7] Justin, Dialogue With Trypho 119, ANF 1:259.
[8] Siker, 14. Diprose asserts that Justin “adopts a typically Greek attitude” toward the characters in the Old Testament, referring to Abraham, Elijah, and Daniel’s three friends as “barbarians.” Ronald E. Diprose,Israel in the Development of Christian Thought (Istituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, 2000), 79.
I fail to see any scripture for your theory...
Isa_11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Rom_15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
Jesus is never called the shoot of a stump...Jesus IS the root and the stump...
Rev_22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
We're not talking modern forestry where you cut off a branch and graft a new branch to it...We're talking about the branch being ripped off from the trunk...The branch is gone...And Christians are grafted into the trunk which is part of the root...
Some research before you preach, please.
Oh I've done plenty of research...That's why I'm not taken in by this 'the church is Israel' replacement theology...
The Gentile church is in Jesus, it is not in Israel...Jewish Christians are in Jesus, they are no longer in Israel...
If that is the verse you think shows that the “church” has replaced Israel better try again. The “church” is “made nigh” to God through the blood of Christ but in no way does that verse show that it has replaced Israel in the “covenant of promise” made to Israel.
The “church” has not replace Israel and never will.
And the specific land given to the nation of Israel “forever” does not belong to the “church”. Once the “fullness of the Gentiles” as come God will once again deal with the nation of Israel.
Amen! Great point!
If the Apostles Peter and Paul didn't advocate for what Justin Martyr asserted, I find it hard to believe it was what God meant to teach AFTER their death. God is NOT done with the nation of Israel. He declared:
This is what the Lord says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— the Lord Almighty is his name:
“Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,” declares the Lord, “will Israel ever cease being a nation before me.” declares the Lord.
This is what the Lord says: “Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,” (Jeremiah 31:35-37)
God is not a man that He should lie.
Well said! Thank you.
Thank you for making this point. I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand it.
If the "church" is replacing Israel, not just being drawn close to God, why even talk about Israel being blinded for a time (Rom. 11:25)?
Justin Martyr is noteworthy in this discussion because he was the first Christian writer to explicitly identify the church as “Israel.”. The movement popularizing this view grew with Origen and his allegorizing of Scripture and then became dominant with the emergence of the State sponsored church. In posting these threads I hope my Reformed FRiends come to understand the history behind the emergence of Supersessionism. It is not supported by a literal understanding of Scripture.
Amen, Amen, Amen!
If we are going to make Scripture the rule of our faith (Sola Scriptura) then we have to be willing to look at what is taught and question it. A lot of churches teach Supersessionism so from a very early age we just accept it as true.
God is not a man that He should lie.
Not the one true God we worship.
You people seem to think I have some position about Israel being the root.
I merely mentioned my screen name earlier as a branch grafted in, and was attacked.
Give it up, already.
The "church" has NOT replaced Israel. Gentiles are GRAFFED into the "church". Jews, who are not believers, have been cut off from the church.
I honestly don't understand how this is difficult to understand.
No one has suggested that Jews, or anyone for that matter, who do not have faith in Jesus Christ are grafted into anything. It seems that those who believe in supersessionism have a blind spot. Just because in this current dispensation, or era, Israel does not see who Jesus Christ is doesn't mean that in a future dispensation, or era, that God won't open their eyes.
What this series of threads is pointing out is not just the error of supersessionism, but also how this erroneous belief became popular. As we see it did not originate during the Apostolic Era. It started to emerge after interpretation of Scripture shifted from literal to allegorical. Justin Martyr got the ball rolling by promoting the idea that all promises God made in the past were now meant for the church.
It may seem off the mark, but if supersessionism is true why are the Jews occupying their God given land and not Christians? I understand why the RCC is always trying to get control of Jerusalem (in the name of peace of course). They are supersessionist and amillennial. I'm sure it's part of the reason they profess such a close tie to the muslims. What is surprising is to see the Reformed, who separated from the RCC with the battle cry "Sola Scriptura" ignore the literal words of Scripture that indicate God will return the Jews to the land He gave them and will open their eyes.
Rom. 11:25 ...that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
That being said, I don't believe you can make the statement that "it did not originate during the Apostolic Era". There are a number of not only onesy verses, but three chapters of Romans is devoted to it.
I take NO position of eschatological understanding except to say a person is either in Christ or not in Christ. A person is a believer or unbeliever. A child of the light or a child of darkness. Righteous or unrighteous. This is what the Kingdom of God is all about. We are sojourners. And those who believe in God are part of this family with all the honor accorded by God the Father and His Son.
Those who do not believe in the Son are not part of this family. And, as you've stated, it is God that opens our eyes and ears to see and hear the truth. It is possible that someday the physical Israel will have their eyes opened to the truth and come to be saved. But when, and if, that day happens God will save them just like He did with Abraham, Moses, Noah and all the rest-to His great glory and honor. But until that occurs, as the scriptures teaches the wrath of God is upon them, for they have rejected the Son.
Thank you. I hope you realize I think of you and several of my Reformed FRiends in the same way.
Those who do not believe in the Son are not part of this family. And, as you've stated, it is God that opens our eyes and ears to see and hear the truth. It is possible that someday the physical Israel will have their eyes opened to the truth and come to be saved. But when, and if, that day happens God will save them just like He did with Abraham, Moses, Noah and all the rest-to His great glory and honor. But until that occurs, as the scriptures teaches the wrath of God is upon them, for they have rejected the Son.
You are restating a view that dispensationalists hold. The point that supersessionists miss is Scripture does make it clear that God does have a plan for a segment of ethnic Israel. In order to avoid this truth supersessionism altered the way we interpret Scripture. Justin Martyr was a culprit in this in that he was the first to promote the belief that all promises given to Israel by God were now given to the church. It's a convenient view if your view of Christianity includes the church as a part of the State, but that perspective ignores what Jesus did at The Cross.
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.