Posted on 05/07/2012 2:38:10 PM PDT by wmfights
This section we will attempt a precise definition of supersessionism. Various titles have been used in identifying the view that the church has permanently replaced Israel in God’s plan. As Marten H. Woudstra observes, “The question whether it is more proper to speak of a replacement of the Jews by the Christian church or of an extension (continuation) of the OT people of God into that of the NT church is variously answered.”[i] The most common designation used in recent scholarly literature to identify this position is “supersessionism.” Commenting on this term, Clark M. Williamson writes, “‘Supersessionism’ comes from two Latin words: super (on or upon) and sedere (to sit), as when one person sits on the chair of another, displacing the latter.”[ii] In addition, the title “replacement theology” is often viewed as a synonym for “supersessionism.”[iii]
Several theologians have offered definitions of “supersessionism” or “replacement theology.” According to Walter C. Kaiser, “Replacement theology . . . declared that the Church, Abraham’s spiritual seed, had replaced national Israel in that it had transcended and fulfilled the terms of the covenant given to Israel, which covenant Israel had lost because of disobedience.”[iv] Ronald E. Diprose defines replacement theology as the view that “the Church completely and permanently replaced ethnic Israel in the working out of God’s plan and as recipient of Old Testament promises to Israel.”[v] R. Kendall Soulen argues that supersessionism is linked with how some view the coming of Jesus Christ: “According to this teaching [supersessionism], God chose the Jewish people after the fall of Adam in order to prepare the world for the coming of Jesus Christ, the Savior. After Christ came, however, the special role of the Jewish people came to an end and its place was taken by the church, the new Israel.”[vi] Herman Ridderbos asserts that there is a positive and negative element to the supersessionist view: “On the one hand, in a positive sense it presupposes that the church springs from, is born out of Israel; on the other hand, the church takes the place of Israel as the historical people of God.”[vii]
These definitions from Kaiser, Diprose, Soulen, and Ridderbos appear consistent with the statements of those who explicitly declare that the church is the replacement of Israel. Bruce K. Waltke, for instance, declares that the New Testament teaches the “hard fact that national Israel and its law have been permanently replaced by the church and the New Covenant.”[viii] According to Hans K. LaRondelle, the New Testament affirms that “Israelwould no longer be the people of God and would be replaced by a people that would accept the Messiah and His message of the kingdom of God.”[ix] LaRondelle believes this “people” is the church who replaces “the Christ-rejecting nation.”[x] Loraine Boettner, too, writes, “It may seem harsh to say that ‘God is done with the Jews.’ But the fact of the matter is that He is through with them as a unified national group having anything more to do with the evangelization of the world. That mission has been taken from them and given to the Christian Church (Matt. 21:43).”[xi]
When comparing the definitions of Kaiser, Diprose, Soulen, and Ridderbos with the statements of those who openly promote a replacement view, it appears that supersessionism is based on two core beliefs: (1) national Israel has somehow completed or forfeited its status as the people of God and will never again possess a unique role or function apart from the church; and (2) the church is now the true Israel that has permanently replaced or superseded national Israel as the people of God. Supersessionism, then, in the context of Israel and the church, is the view that the New Testament church is the new Israel that has forever superseded national Israel as the people of God. The result is that the church has become the sole inheritor of God’s covenant blessings originally promised to national Israel in the Old Testament. This rules out any future restoration of national Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] Marten H. Woudstra, “Israel and the Church,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1987), 237. Woudstra believes that the terms, “replacement,” and “continuation” are both acceptable and consistent with biblical teaching. See also G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 55.
[ii] Clark M. Williamson, A Guest in the House of Israel: Post-Holocaust Church Theology(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 268, n. 9.
[iii] Diprose views the titles “replacement theology” and “supersessionism” as being synonymous. He also notes that the title “replacement theology” is a “relatively new term in Christian theology.” Ronald E. Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought (Rome: Istituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, 2000), 31, n. 2. In this present work, we will use the titles “supersessionism” and “replacement theology” as synonyms. We acknowledge, though, that these designations may not be entirely satisfactory to those who view the church more as the continuation or fulfillment of national Israel. See Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard De Witt. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 333–34; Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 1058–59.
[iv] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “An Assessment of ‘Replacement Theology’: The Relationship Between theIsrael of the Abrahamic–Davidic Covenant and the Christian Church,” Mishkan 21 (1994): 9.
[v] Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought, 2.
[vi] R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 1–2.
[vii] Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard de Witt. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), Paul, 333–34.
[viii] Bruce K. Waltke, “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,” in Continuity and Discontinuity, 274. He also states, “The Jewish nation no longer has a place as the special people of God; that place has been taken by the Christian community which fulfills God’s purpose for Israel” (275). Emphasis in original.
[ix] Hans K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, Principles of Prophetic Interpretation(Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983), 101. Emphasis in original.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Loraine Boettner, The Millennium (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1957), 89–90. According to Bright, “The New Testament triumphantly hails the Church as Israel . . . the true heir of Israel’s hope.” John Bright, The Kingdom of God (Nashville: Abingdon, 1953), 226.
You won't get an argument from me about election during the Church Age. However, I do believe there are other periods where free will is the guide. The millennial reign is one example that comes to mind.
Please read the next thread in this series about Acts 1:6. I think you might find the argument interesting.
Thanks in advance!
I'm sorry, I lost your argument at the point where you started uttering falsehoods.
Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “ I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
35 Thus says the Lord,
Who gives the sun for light by day
And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;
The Lord of hosts is His name:
36 “ If this fixed order departs
From before Me,” declares the Lord, Then the offspring of Israel also will cease From being a nation before Me forever.”
37 Thus says the Lord,
“If the heavens above can be measured And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done,” declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 31: 31-37)
I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. (Romans 11:1,2)
For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“ The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
27 “ This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. (Romans 11:25-31)
Are the above verses true or false?
Interesting, but wrong.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post though.
The problem with covenant theology is that it assumes that there is a covenant(s) between Jehovah and man: covenants of works, grace and an optional covenant of redemption. I don’t have to proved my position (dispensationalism) to the covenant crowd in the sense that if I’m wrong, that doesn’t make them correct. Covenant theology is not Biblical, period.
Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, . . .
Of course I don't dismiss Jeremiah's prophecy of the New Covenant. Jesus ratified the New Covenant with his blood (Luke 20:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). Paul, writing to the Corinthian church, said to the Gentile Christians there that he was a minister of the new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6).
The author to the Hebrews says that Jesus Christ is the mediator of the new covenant. He quotes that very passage of Jeremiah that you just did, and says it has been fulfilled, now, in the continuing high priesthood of Christ himself before the Father.
(Romans 11:1,2)
What is the context of Romans 11? It's part of the argument that Paul begins in Romans 9, in which he argues that God has kept his promises because a remnant of them had been saved; that the Jews had no excuse for not realizing that the covenant would include Gentiles as well, because the Scriptures spoke of it from the time of Moses.
Yes, Romans 11 says that God will again show mercy to the Israelites, just as his mercy is present on the Gentiles. I see in Romans 11 a prediction of a future mass conversion of the Jews to Christ (and may it come soon).
However, that can be true, without whatever it is you think I believe being false.
In short:
Are the above verses true or false?
True, of course—as understood correctly. Kindly do me the courtesy of not falsely accusing me of denying them, when I deny only your interpretation.
It's been fulfilled? When God says:
The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
we know that Jesus will come and remove ungodliness from Israel. Would you say that Israel is now in a state of "ungodliness"? If so, how so? And if you can't give any examples of how Israel is now in a state of "ungodliness", will you still cling to the position that this has been fulfilled?
When God says:
“ This is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.”
Have the sins of the Jewish people been "taken away"? If so, how so? And if you can't give any examples of how the sins of the Jewish people have been taken away, where is your Biblical justification for stating that that prophecy has been fulfilled?
itc is a reality now, not merely in the future
But we do know that the New Covenant was meant for the Jews and it's only by the compassion and mercy of God that Gentiles have been added in:
The New Covenant (Deut. 29:4; 30:6; Isa. 59:20–21; 61:8–9; Jer. 31:31–40; 32:37–40; 50:4–5; Ezek. 11:19–20; 16:60–63; 34:25–26; 36:24–32; 37:21–28; Zech. 9:11; 12:10–14; Heb. 8:1-13; 10:15-18) provides for the yet future spiritual regeneration of Israel in preparation for the millennial kingdom. This is an unconditional covenant and is made between the Lord and the nation of Israel and has not yet been enacted for the nation of Israel. The New Covenant is predictive of Israel’s new spiritual condition that begins at the end of the tribulation and continues into and throughout the Millennial Kingdom.
Arnold Fruchtenbaum tells us the following about the New Covenant for Israel:
The announcement of the New Covenant begins with a declaration that it will be a Jewish covenant, for it will be made with both houses of Israel (v. 31). It will be in sharp contradistinction with the older Mosaic Covenant (v. 32). Of the five Jewish covenants, the Mosaic was the only conditional one. Although God had been faithful in keeping His terms of the covenant, Israel had not been so faithful, resulting in the Mosaic Covenant's being broken. For while the Mosaic Covenant showed the standard of righteousness which the Law demanded, it could never impart to the Jew the power to keep it. But that problem will be rectified in the New Covenant (v. 33) through regeneration, which will provide the internal power necessary to meet and to keep the righteous standards of God. The result of the New Covenant will be a total national regeneration of Israel (v. 34). Jewish missions and Jewish evangelism will not be needed in the Messianic Kingdom because every Jew will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest. The sins of Israel will be forgiven and forgotten. While there will be Gentile unbelievers in the Kingdom, there will not be Jewish unbelievers in the Kingdom. To a man, all the Jews will believe. There will be no need to tell a Jew to "know the Lord" because they will all know Him.1
snip
A key to understanding what Scripture teaches on this matter is to recognize that the Old Testament promise of the New Covenant contained both spiritual and material benefits. The church indeed is enjoying the spiritual benefits (e.g., regeneration and the indwelling Holy Spirit), but the church is not experiencing the material benefits, which remain unfulfilled and will remain unfulfilled until literal national Israel appropriates the New Covenant to experience both its spiritual and physical benefits at the end of the Tribulation and throughout the millennium. Paul says in Romans, “For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things” (Rom. 15:27). Rodney J. Decker has the following explanation of how the New Covenant applies to the church today: The New Covenant, prophesied in the Old Testament to be made with Israel, was ratified at the Cross and implemented as a replacement of the Mosaic Covenant. It is presently the basis on which anyone relates to God and it governs the life of all believers. The church, though not a formal partner of the New Covenant, participates in the covenant both as a subject of its rule of life and as a recipient of promised Abrahamic Covenant blessings for Gentiles that have come through the Seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ. This explanation does not demand that the church “fulfill” the covenant; that remains for national Israel in the future millennium. It does acknowledge that there is more involved in the New Covenant than could have been known simply from the Old Testament. This in no way changes the meaning of those passages, but does allow for God’s doing more than He promised (though it will be no less than promised). The term “partial fulfillment” is not necessary. If fulfillment is used to describe the relationship of the covenant partners, then fulfillment in any respect should be viewed as future. “Participation” is a better term to describe the present aspects as it both avoids replacement concepts (the church replacing Israel in fulfilling the covenant) and also explains the partial nature of the obedience evident in the experience of the church. Even though the ministry of the Holy Spirit has changed dramatically, based on the ratification and implementation of the New Covenant, the full ramifications of that ministry will not be experienced until the covenant enters the fulfillment stage in the future messianic kingdom. . . . The Old Testament does not say that only Israel will participate in the New Covenant. The Old Testament does say that the New Covenant is made with Israel. That is different, however, from saying that the New Covenant is only for Israel. The New Testament does not violate Old Testament statements when it includes more than was revealed in the Old Testament.2
If one attempts to say that the New Covenant is being fulfilled today, during the current church age, through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, then it would mean that we should not evangelize any more, that every Jew would be saved, and that we would have the Law of God written on our hearts (compare Jer. 31:31–34). This is not the case within the church today. Therefore, it means that we are not currently experiencing the full impact of the New Covenant as described in the Old Testament. Postmillennialists, Amillennialists, Covenant Theologians, and preterists all believe that all aspects of the New Covenant are being fulfilled today. If such were the case then why do we have evangelism and have to teach people the Law? Jeremiah speaking the word of the Lord says, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jer. 31:33b–34). Believers today simply do not fit this description. Further, the Lord is speaking about what He will do with Israel. Notice to whom the passage is directed: “’But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ declares the LORD” (Jer. 31:33a).
This is certainly not yet a description of the Jewish nation as it exists today. The Bible is clear that Israel will one day receive the benefits of the New Covenant. What a wonderful day that will be when she enters into a right relationship with the Lord after all of those years. At the same time, the church is a partaker in the spiritual blessings that flow from the New Covenant, not “a taker over” of Israel’s promises, as some are inclined to say. God’s plan is on course and will be fully implemented in the course of His timing. Maranatha!
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-%28Part7%29CovenantsandD.pdf
So we know from Scripture that God is not finished with Israel and the Jews, we know that He has made promises to them which are yet to be fulfilled, and we know that replacement theology finds absolutely zero support in the Bible, and is, in fact, in direct contradiction to the Bible and is therefore a demonic doctrine.
I reject that radical dichotomy, and I reject the slanderous accusation that I "deny" Scripture, merely because I don't need Dispy-coloured glasses or a copy of Clarence Larkin's charts in order to believe my Bible.
Leave out all the favorite boogymen that those who don't believe the Bible as God wrote it constantly drag out to try to hide behind when they get busted for denying Scripture and called out on it.
Do you have a response that will Scripturally validate your belief?
One should look at the actual time of when the complete "Kingdom of Israel" existed. Saul's reign was miserable with lots of infighting and wars, ruled by a person who later became mentally unstable to the point of calling in a spiritualist and abandoning God. Yet Saul, to his credit, brought Israel together. David reign likewise was great with the fortification of strongholds, etc. Yet for all the greatness of King David, he was nearly kicked out of office in open rebellion, driven out of Jerusalem after a few short years. Solomon created splendor but at a terrible price to the Israelites and sacrificing children to the demonic god Molech, taxed so heavily until the people openly rebelled. (BTW-This was warned by Moses that this would happen if they made a king).
The kingdom was broken into two kingdoms shortly after the death of Solomon; the northern kingdom (Israel) and the southern kingdom (Judah). The actual "kingdom of Israel" was the northern kingdom and was corrupt. It was the first to go followed by the southern kingdom.
I say all of this in that when the disciples were talking to our Lord, the Jews had a very romantic sense in looked forward to the restoration of David's physical kingdom. But the "Kingdom of Israel", whatever that means, was always corrupt.
Christ, OTOH, looked at the kingdom of Israel as a spiritual realm. Not one that was marred with infighting, intrigued and corruption. Rather a perfect one, build on a perfect throne in the linage of David as promised by God. It cannot be corrupted. So I would suggest, as often happened in the case of our Lord and His disciples, in Acts 1:6-7 they were talking about two different things. The disciples having a romantic view of the Kingdom of Israel, and Christ having the actual view-a spiritual view of the restoration of Israel.
Rom 11:25-27 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
The Deliverer did come from Zion. He banished all ungodliness from Jacob by creating the perfect kingdom-His kingdom when He took away our sins.
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.