Is Supersessionism really a controversial position?

[Aryeh]

I'll be honest I didn't even know this word until I went down the Wikipedia rabbit hole.

Supersessionism is the idea that before Christ came Judaism was the true faith but when Christ was born, lived, performed miracles, was crucified for our sins and resurrected he completed Judaism since Christ is the Messiah that the Jewish people had been awaiting and now Christianity is the truth faith.


I thought that this was just common sense, but apparently it's controversial in some circles because it denies the current validity of the Jewish faith. I don't get that, since of course if Christ is the truth then ipso facto non-Christian religions are not.


I'm Eastern Orthodox by the way.


What's your opinion on this?

Many of the Hebrew biblical heroes explicitly stated their understanding of their coming Savior. The Apocryphal books like Enoch actually call Him by name.

Hebrews, or "Judaism" was never supposed to be discontinuous when Christ came and fulfilled His purpose. The Hebrews of old were actually "Christians" in that they knew Christ through faith and prophecy.

His first prophecy was given to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15.

 

[com7fy8]

If God still has promises for flesh and blood Jews, I consider how in their Law He guarantees that, if they disobey Him, there will be Gentiles who will take over their lands and make them slaves. And, at this time, they are not obeying God by honoring Jesus as their Messiah. And we see how they have been ravaged in various ways while not opening honoring and obeying Jesus as their Messiah. But ones seem to ignore this and try to take what I call short-cuts to get what they claim to be promises fulfilled . . . but without requiring them to honor and obey our Heavenly Father through Jesus.

But the Law guarantees what will happen if they do not honor and obey the LORD who expects us all to trust in Jesus > Ephesians 1:12.

But there are political motives for telling people to help the Jews to get and keep their Promised Land . . . without expecting them all to first turn to Jesus and obey Him. So, I see why there can be people who claim to be Christians, who will overlook the requirement to obey, if the main motive is political and geographical. Also, ones understand that certain things must happen to the Jews, in order for us to come the the end times and be raptured; so ones can try to help this along, by pushing for even disobedient people to return to Israel though they do not in their hearts truly turn to the LORD . . . through Jesus their Messiah.

By they way > there are Jews who already have obeyed God > these are included among the first men and women whom Jesus used to start Christianity Mean-while other flesh and blood Jews have been God's enemies!! So, I consider that any beneficial promises to flesh and blood Jews would be to the benefit of the flesh and blood Jews who are obeying Jesus and are openly saying Jesus is their Messiah. But Galatians 3:28 says that in Jesus "There is neither Jew nor Greek". So, possibly promises to Jews is to us all who are with the flesh and blood Jews who have ministered the start of Christianity and who are now in the body of Jesus with us > Romans 2:28-29.

In any case, returning to the Promised Land can't do much if the people do not in their hearts return to the LORD by turning to Jesus our Messiah

So, I consider that we are not helping them, only by doing things political while they remain disobedient. In the time of Jesus ones wanted Jesus to be their king who would overthrow the Romans; but Jesus would not go along with that > John 2:23-25 with John 6:14-15. Rebellious Jews have had a history of trying to have a king they could us for what they want, including > 1 Samuel 8:1-9.

So are you saying Jews should become Christians but retain their specific Jewish identity? Wasn't this condemned in the Book of Acts as the Judaizer heresy?

Galatians 3:28, with Galatians 2:11-13

Christ is the New Israel, Israel no longer refers to the Hebrew people.

I consider it possible that God has made specific guarantees for the Jews during our New Testament times; but Jews who have trusted in Jesus have become new creatures > 2 Corinthians 5:17 < so, they have better promises with all of us who are God's children

That's one side of the controversy. Do you think any of God's promises to the Jews/Israel remain for the Jews/Israel?

Well, if there are promises to flesh and blood Jews who are not Christians, they are missing out on so much unless they turn to Jesus and join us. I would be more concerned with the New Testament guarantees which are for all of us "children of God" < 1 John 3:1.

His promises to them specifically that have not been fulfilled pre-Christ are now promises to the body of Christ, the Church.

Well, the Promised Land, to my knowledge, is bigger than the present confines of Israel. This land includes areas in other sovereign countries bordering Israel. So, they have not truly geographically returned to their Promised Land.

Also, our Apostle Paul says "the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God," in Romans 8:21. So, I consider this means the whole earth shall be resurrected into our "glorious liberty". And then we all shall inherit the whole earth, including any Promised Land part of it . . . possibly

That doesn't mean that they should give up their heritage just like my ancestors didn't when they stopped being English and Irish pagans.

Well, in Jesus we are new, with a new identity > Galatians 3:28. But we can use our reputation of being whatever, in order to reach and share with humans who need Jesus.

Also, I consider how Paul could become like people he was reaching to > 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 < so, he might say he was a Jew, for such a purpose, but not because that was his real identity.

 

[Greg J.]

The descendants of the Jews are Christians! By that I mean that the Jewish religion gave way to the Christian faith with the coming of our blessed Lord.


Read this, from the Russian Orthodox Church (my church)

Fr. John Whiteford. The New Israel, New Jerusalem / OrthoChristian.Com

It appears you don't have any verses. Father Whiteford didn't either in that article. I am not talking about an old way to be saved, which, by the way, was always by faith. Spiritual truths frequently have double (or more) fulfillment.

 

[khristosanesti]

It appears you don't have any verses. Father Whiteford didn't either in that article. I am not talking about an old way to be saved, which, by the way, was always by faith. Spiritual truths frequently have double (or more) fulfillment.

Buddy, it seems that you didn't actually read the article.


Second paragraph:

St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 11 is clear that those Jews who rejected Christ are like branches cut off from the olive tree, which represents the people of God—and that gentile converts are like wild olive branches that have been grafted on to that same tree. The Church is the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), the Israelites formed the Church of the Old Testament, but the New Testament Church is in continuity with the old. However, Romans 11 is equally clear that there is still a future in God’s providence for those who are the physical descendants of the Old Testament Israel, who rejected Christ and so have been cut off from the Church, but who will one day be saved. And so we do speak of the Church as the new Israel, but this does not mean there is no sense in which we can still speak of the Israel according to the flesh.

As for the incoherence of sola fide (faith alone) that is a whole 'nother topic. Faith manifests itself in works, faith without works is dead faith and true faith means that one takes part in the Holy Mysteries (sacraments) of the church.

 

[Soyeong]

I'll be honest I didn't even know this word until I went down the Wikipedia rabbit hole.

Supersessionism is the idea that before Christ came Judaism was the true faith but when Christ was born, lived, performed miracles, was crucified for our sins and resurrected he completed Judaism since Christ is the Messiah that the Jewish people had been awaiting and now Christianity is the truth faith.


I thought that this was just common sense, but apparently it's controversial in some circles because it denies the current validity of the Jewish faith. I don't get that, since of course if Christ is the truth then ipso facto non-Christian religions are not.


I'm Eastern Orthodox by the way.


What's your opinion on this?

Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism, so if you wouldn't consider Catholics, Anglicans, or other denominations to be distinct from Christianity, then you shouldn't consider Christianity at its origin as being distinct from Judaism. In Acts 6:13, Stephen was falsely accused of teaching Jews against obeying God's Law, and in Acts 21:20-24, Paul took steps at the direction of James to disprove a false rumor that he was teaching Jews against obeying God's Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it, so if no one in leadership was doing that, then all Christians were Torah observant Jews for roughly the first 7-15 years after Christ's ascension up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10.

Jesus did not come to start a new religion, but rather he was born a Jew, raised a Jew, become a Jewish rabbi, and Jewish disciples, is the Jewish Messiah, fulfilled Jewish prophecies, will return as the Lion of Judah, and came to bring fullness to Judaism. The central theme of Bible is essentially God's continuously revealed and enacted plan of redemption for mankind through faith in Messiah, so if someone thinks that the NT is God saying, "and now for something completely different" then the Bible has much more continuity than they have given it credit for.

Judaism is the religion that Jesus taught and lived out by example, so Judaism is something that he fulfilled by bringing full understanding to, not something that he completed and did away with. Over the centuries, Christianity became more distinct from Judaism and became a new religion in its own right, with Jews following the Torah, but not their Messiah, with Christians following the Jewish Messiah, but not his Torah that he taught and lived out, and sadly with both following only half the truth.

 

[Greg J.]

Buddy, it seems that you didn't actually read the article.

St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 11 is clear that those Jews who rejected Christ are like branches cut off from the olive tree, which represents the people of God—and that gentile converts are like wild olive branches that have been grafted on to that same tree. The Church is the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), the Israelites formed the Church of the Old Testament, but the New Testament Church is in continuity with the old. However, Romans 11 is equally clear that there is still a future in God’s providence for those who are the physical descendants of the Old Testament Israel, who rejected Christ and so have been cut off from the Church, but who will one day be saved. And so we do speak of the Church as the new Israel, but this does not mean there is no sense in which we can still speak of the Israel according to the flesh.

As I stated, I was talking about God's promises to the descendants of the Jews other than salvation. There is nothing about that in his article. When God associates his name with anything, he doesn't retract it. While the things may reject him, God doesn't reject them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll be honest I didn't even know this word until I went down the Wikipedia rabbit hole.

Supersessionism is the idea that before Christ came Judaism was the true faith but when Christ was born, lived, performed miracles, was crucified for our sins and resurrected he completed Judaism since Christ is the Messiah that the Jewish people had been awaiting and now Christianity is the truth faith.


I thought that this was just common sense, but apparently it's controversial in some circles because it denies the current validity of the Jewish faith. I don't get that, since of course if Christ is the truth then ipso facto non-Christian religions are not.


I'm Eastern Orthodox by the way.


What's your opinion on this?

Hi khristosanesti,

Welcome to CF! And in answer to your question: Yes

But, we need to understand that there are more than just two positions on the assessment as to who now constitutes "the people of Israel." It's not just, yay or nay.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid.

 

[khristosanesti]

As I stated, I was talking about God's promises to the descendants of the Jews other than salvation. There is nothing about that in his article. When God associates his name with anything, he doesn't retract it. While the things may reject him, God doesn't reject them.

It's like you don't understand what I and the article is saying. Nothing promised to Israel has changed, WHO Israel is has changed because the Jews rejected God.

 

[khristosanesti]

Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism, so if you wouldn't consider Catholics, Anglicans, or other denominations to be distinct from Christianity, then you shouldn't consider Christianity at its origin as being distinct from Judaism. In Acts 6:13, Stephen was falsely accused of teaching Jews against obeying God's Law, and in Acts 21:20-24, Paul took steps at the direction of James to disprove a false rumor that he was teaching Jews against obeying God's Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it, so if no one in leadership was doing that, then all Christians were Torah observant Jews for roughly the first 7-15 years after Christ's ascension up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10.

Jesus did not come to start a new religion, but rather he was born a Jew, raised a Jew, become a Jewish rabbi, and Jewish disciples, is the Jewish Messiah, fulfilled Jewish prophecies, will return as the Lion of Judah, and came to bring fullness to Judaism. The central theme of Bible is essentially God's continuously revealed and enacted plan of redemption for mankind through faith in Messiah, so if someone thinks that the NT is God saying, "and now for something completely different" then the Bible has much more continuity than they have given it credit for.

Judaism is the religion that Jesus taught and lived out by example, so Judaism is something that he fulfilled by bringing full understanding to, not something that he completed and did away with. Over the centuries, Christianity became more distinct from Judaism and became a new religion in its own right, with Jews following the Torah, but not their Messiah, with Christians following the Jewish Messiah, but not his Torah that he taught and lived out, and sadly with both following only half the truth.

Christians, at least Christians who keep to the ways of the faith passed down from the Apostles (Orthodoxy, my church) do certainly regard the Old Testament which includes the Torah as binding however we avoid the heresy of Judaizing as outlined by the Apostles after the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts. Christians do not need to circumcise or keep kosher and we certainly don't need the Temple since the purpose of the temple was to sacrifice animals for the sins of the Hebrews and Christ died for all of our sins forever.

 

[smithrt1967]

I'll be honest I didn't even know this word until I went down the Wikipedia rabbit hole.

Supersessionism is the idea that before Christ came Judaism was the true faith but when Christ was born, lived, performed miracles, was crucified for our sins and resurrected he completed Judaism since Christ is the Messiah that the Jewish people had been awaiting and now Christianity is the truth faith.


I thought that this was just common sense, but apparently it's controversial in some circles because it denies the current validity of the Jewish faith. I don't get that, since of course if Christ is the truth then ipso facto non-Christian religions are not.


I'm Eastern Orthodox by the way.


What's your opinion on this?

The Jewish law was fulfilled by Jesus and replace by the new christian law. Their was promised made to Abraham and those promised are still in effect because they was made to Abraham and he kept his side of the promise. That promise was pass down to his descendants but because Abraham kept his side of it God has keep his part of it also.

Their is also a difference between the Jewish culture and the religion. While Judaism may have been fulfilled they still have many years of traditions and culture that is part of their life.

 

[1213]

...
What's your opinion on this?

I am not sure how Judaism should be understood, what is correct Judaism, but in Biblical point of view, all disciples of Jesus (“Christians”) should be considered Jews.

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 2:28-29

 

[khristosanesti]

I am not sure how Judaism should be understood, what is correct Judaism, but in Biblical point of view, all disciples of Jesus (“Christians”) should be considered Jews.

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 2:28-29

Yes, the Church is the new Israel/Jerusalem.


Opposition to supersessionism is basically saying that Judaism which does not recognize Christ as messiah is a valid religion. It is not.

 

[Soyeong]

Christians, at least Christians who keep to the ways of the faith passed down from the Apostles (Orthodoxy, my church) do certainly regard the Old Testament which includes the Torah as binding however we avoid the heresy of Judaizing as outlined by the Apostles after the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts. Christians do not need to circumcise or keep kosher and we certainly don't need the Temple since the purpose of the temple was to sacrifice animals for the sins of the Hebrews and Christ died for all of our sins forever.

There is a theme throughout the Bible that we must obey God rather than man, so it is important to correctly identify what Judaizing is because what the Judaizers were wanting in Acts 15:1 is not command anywhere in God's Law. While God did require circumcision as a sign of the covenant, He did not require all Gentiles to become circumcised or even Jews to become circumcised for the specified purpose of becoming saved, so what was being discussed in Acts 15:1 was a man-made requirement.

According to Isaiah 45:25, all Israel will be saved, so many Jews incorrectly thought that Gentiles need to become Jews in order to become saved, which meant going through the process of becoming a Jewish proselyte involving circumcision and meant joining the group of people who agreed at Sinai to do everything that Moses said (Exodus 20:19, Deuteronomy 5:22-27). According to them:

“Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it Joshua. Joshua transmitted it to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly. They [the Men of the Great Assembly] said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise many students, and make a protective fence for the Torah.” - Mishna 1(a)

By the 1st century, those who had Moses' power passed down to them to make authoritative interpretations on the Torah were referred to as sitting in Moses' seat (Matthew 23:2-4) and this had become a large body of oral laws, rulings, traditions, and fences. So by becoming circumcised, Gentiles were agreeing to become Jews and to live as Jews according to all of the oral laws of the Pharisees for the purpose of becoming saved, and by rejecting this man-made requirement the Jerusalem Council was upholding God's Law. God has given no one the authority to countermand Him, so if God's Law had required all Gentiles to become circumcised, and the Jerusalem Council had told them not to obey God's command, then Gentiles should obey God instead of them, but they never spoke against anyone obeying any of God's commands. So if any man tries to deprive you of the privilege of obeying God's command by faith to keep kosher and that you should instead feel free to eat what is an abomination to Him, then you should trust and obey God instead of them.

In Acts 18:18, Paul took a Nazarite vow that required him to make offerings (Numbers 6) and in Acts 21:20-24, Paul was going to pay the expenses for the offerings of others who had taken that vow, so offerings did not ceases with death and resurrection of Jesus, but only ceased because of the destruction of the temple. The Bible prophesies a times when a 3rd temple will be built and when offerings will resume (Ezekiel 44-46).

 

[khristosanesti]

There is a theme throughout the Bible that we must obey God rather than man, so it is important to correctly identify what Judaizing is because what the Judaizers were wanting in Acts 15:1 is not command anywhere in God's Law. While God did require circumcision as a sign of the covenant, He did not require all Gentiles to become circumcised or even Jews to become circumcised for the specified purpose of becoming saved, so what was being discussed in Acts 15:1 was a man-made requirement.

According to Isaiah 45:25, all Israel will be saved, so many Jews incorrectly thought that Gentiles need to become Jews in order to become saved, which meant going through the process of becoming a Jewish proselyte involving circumcision and meant joining the group of people who agreed at Sinai to do everything that Moses said (Exodus 20:19, Deuteronomy 5:22-27). According to them:

“Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it Joshua. Joshua transmitted it to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly. They [the Men of the Great Assembly] said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise many students, and make a protective fence for the Torah.” - Mishna 1(a)

By the 1st century, those who had Moses' power passed down to them to make authoritative interpretations on the Torah were referred to as sitting in Moses' seat (Matthew 23:2-4) and this had become a large body of oral laws, rulings, traditions, and fences. So by becoming circumcised, Gentiles were agreeing to become Jews and to live as Jews according to all of the oral laws of the Pharisees for the purpose of becoming saved, and by rejecting this man-made requirement the Jerusalem Council was upholding God's Law. God has given no one the authority to countermand Him, so if God's Law had required all Gentiles to become circumcised, and the Jerusalem Council had told them not to obey God's command, then Gentiles should obey God instead of them, but they never spoke against anyone obeying any of God's commands. So if any man tries to deprive you of the privilege of obeying God's command by faith to keep kosher and that you should instead feel free to eat what is an abomination to Him, then you should trust and obey God instead of them.

In Acts 18:18, Paul took a Nazarite vow that required him to make offerings (Numbers 6) and in Acts 21:20-24, Paul was going to pay the expenses for the offerings of others who had taken that vow, so offerings did not ceases with death and resurrection of Jesus, but only ceased because of the destruction of the temple. The Bible prophesies a times when a 3rd temple will be built and when offerings will resume (Ezekiel 44-46).

Judaizing is defined as taking up the laws of the 613 commandments for Jews in the OT. The purpose for doing that was supposedly to please God so that the Messiah will come.


Not only is this eerily similar to Pelagianism, trying to buy salvation (condemned at the Council of Ephesus) it's not necessary to do that because the Messiah already came.


The One True Church does not ask us to behave like Jews. I follow the Church.

 

[Look Up]

So are you saying Jews should become Christians but retain their specific Jewish identity? Wasn't this condemned in the Book of Acts as the Judaizer heresy?

If I could inject a narrow focus on circumcision by way of illustration, I think a distinction needs to be made which the above seems to miss, or may depending on meaning.

1) Paul tells the churches in Galatia (of which I believe Lystra is a member town) "if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you" (Gal. 5:3).

2) Luke tells us "Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek" (Acts 16:1).​

Question then: Was Paul being theologically incoherent, did he change his mind between the two above quotes wrt circumcision, or is there an explanation of the two quotes derived from a single coherent position as it relates to circumcision?

Paul explains wrt Galatians that "every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5:3-4); I suggest a like issue was addressed at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15: the Judaizer heresy of the aim of being justified/saved by law (including circumcision, v. 5) rather than grace.

Contextual clues in Acts 16 may be slim for our purposes: Paul wanted Timothy circumcised at Lystra "because of the Jews who were in those places" and Luke goes out of his way to explain that Timothy was the "son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek" (Acts 16:1). Further, "As they [including Timothy] went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem" (v. 4), a decision in which Paul apparently partook and agreed (15:2).

If then Paul agreed with the rejection of the need to be circumcised (and keep the whole law) per Acts 15, why did he have Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews" in the area in question per the subsequent Acts 16 account? Was Paul not suddenly caving in to the opposite of the Council letter which he and Timothy were then delivering--to the effect that Gentile Christians are in fact "obligated to keep the whole law" in flat contradiction of what Paul was best known for rejecting?

Not likely.

Why then did Paul have Timothy circumcised? I would suggest Paul, in the spirit of wanting to "become all things to all people, that by all means [he] might save some" (1 Cor. 9:22) had Timothy circumcised so that in evangelizing Jews in the (I think Galatian) area in which Timothy's mixed religious heritage (Jewish mother and Greek father) was known in Jewish circles might not become an unnecessary stumbling block to initial hearing of the gospel in Jewish (esp. synagogue) context. In this sense and context then, to "retain ... [a] specific Jewish identity" by means of circumcision is not a concession to "the Judaizer heresy." Recall that for Paul "neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" (Gal. 6:15).

All that does not answer all questions, but seems the best model for explaining all the evidence so far as I know (or rather as far as the camp of thought on the issue to which I belong knows). Others no doubt will differ, and "my" view (not that it is mine alone) is not free from potential challenges. But Paul's character was not such that he might readily shrink back from a controversy over justification by faith apart from works of the law or over circumcision (e.g., Galatians epistle, Acts 21ff).

 

[Look Up]

P.S. The two posts previous to mine I did not read until after my above post went online.

 

[Soyeong]

Judaizing is defined as taking up the laws of the 613 commandments for Jews in the OT. The purpose for doing that was supposedly to please God so that the Messiah will come.

Not only is this eerily similar to Pelagianism, trying to buy salvation (condemned at the Council of Ephesus) it's not necessary to do that because the Messiah already came.

I will agree that your definition of Judaizing is correct if you can show me anywhere in the 613 commandments where it requires all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved. However, if you can't show me where that requirement is found in the 613 commandments, then I hope that you will agree with me that what what was being discussed in Acts 15:1 was not whether Gentiles should obey the 613 commandments, and there therefore your definition of Judaizing is not correct.

In John 14:15, Jesus said that if we love him, then we will obey his commands, so obedience to God has been about demonstrating our love for Him. In Deuteronomy 6:24 and Deuteronomy 10:13, God said that what He commanded was for His people's own good, so obedience to God's commands has always been about demonstrating our faith in Him about how to rightly live, and thereby growing in a relationship with Him based on love and faith. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith was one of the weightier matters of the Law, so obedience to the Law has always been about faith and has never been about trying to earn our salvation. Thinking that obedience to the Law was about trying earn our salvation has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the Law and a legalistic perversion of it. Paul spent a lot of time hammering home the point that obeying the Law was not about trying to become justified and that we are justified by faith apart from the Law, yet today many people are still making the same error of thinking that obeying the Law is about trying to become justified, only they have compounded their error by concluding that therefore our faith has done away with the need to obey the Law, whereas Paul concluded that our faith does not abolish the Law, but rather our faith upholds the Law (Romans 3:27-31).

The One True Church does not ask us to behave like Jews. I follow the Church.

The way to behave like Jews was to live according to their halakhah, or in other words, their oral laws, rulings, traditions, and fences, whereas the way to behave according to God's holiness, righteousness, and good is to obey the Mosaic Law (Romans 7:12). In 1 Peter 1:13-16, it tell us to have a holy conduct not because we should be like Jews but because God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus, so following God's instructions in Leviticus for how to have a holy conduct is not about behaving like Jews, but rather it is behaving according to the holiness of our God. You are paying too much attention to who the Law was given to and not enough on who it was given by. So I would agree that we should not behave like Jews, but we should nevertheless as part of the New Covenant we are told to follow God's instructions for how to do what is holy, righteous, and good, which are found in the Mosaic Law, and we are told to follow Messiah's example, who lived in perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law.

The Greek word "ekklesia" is translated as "assembly" or "church", but it is used in the Septuagint to refer to the assembly of Israel in the wilderness, so that is when the Church Age began and what it means to be a follower of the One True Church. When translators of the NT inconsistently translated "ekklesia" as "church" when it refers to group of Christian believers and translated it as "assembly" everywhere else, they create the false impression that the Church is something brand new and distinct rather than the continuation of something being rebuilt according to prophecy (Amos 9:11).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll be honest I didn't even know this word until I went down the Wikipedia rabbit hole.

Supersessionism is the idea that before Christ came Judaism was the true faith but when Christ was born, lived, performed miracles, was crucified for our sins and resurrected he completed Judaism since Christ is the Messiah that the Jewish people had been awaiting and now Christianity is the truth faith.


I thought that this was just common sense, but apparently it's controversial in some circles because it denies the current validity of the Jewish faith. I don't get that, since of course if Christ is the truth then ipso facto non-Christian religions are not.


I'm Eastern Orthodox by the way.


What's your opinion on this?

My opinion is that the Old Covenant is still in force, side by side with the New Covenant, like two trains running parallel to each other. The main problem is that once the New Testament train tracks were built and became parallel with the Old, the passengers on the Old Train have been in need of switching over, since the Old will run out of track and not reach the final destination on its own. Everyday, both trains stop at the same stations along the way. Passengers on the Old train will have to voluntarily decide if they want to switch to the New train.

So, in some sense, Jews still are the first people of God, and are under the Blessings and Curses of the Old Law. The problem is that the Old Law tells Jews to "pay attention to the Prophet who is to come," and a good number of them have failed to do so. Some, since the time of Jesus, have paid attention and realized that Jesus was the Prophet, as well as the Messiah, as well as the Fullfiller of the requirements of the Old Law.

They (the Jews) were Israel; now we all can be through Jesus the Messiah.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Soyeong]

My opinion is that the Old Covenant is still in force, side by side with the New Covenant, like two trains running parallel to each other. The main problem is that once the New Testament train tracks were built and became parallel with the Old, the passengers on the Old Train have been in need of switching over, since the Old will run out of track and not reach the final destination on its own.

So, in some sense, Jews still are the first people of God, and are under the Blessings and Curses of the Old Law. The problem is that the Old Law tells Jews to "pay attention to the Prophet who is to come," and a good number of them have failed to do so. Some, since the time of Jesus, have paid attention and realized that Jesus was the Prophet, as well as the Messiah, as well as the Fullfiller of the requirements of the Old Law.

They (the Jews) were Israel; now we all can be through Jesus the Messiah.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Jesus fulfilled the Law in the same sense that Romans 15:18-19 says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, namely that he taught full obedience to it in word and in deed, not that he did away with God's righteous standard.

 

[truefiction1]

It is one thing to believe that saved people will inherit the promises God gave to the Jews, and quite another to believe that his promises no longer apply to the Jews. Christians were ingrafted branches into something that still existed in Paul's time. Do you have verses that indicates that God will no longer keep his promises made to the descendants of the Jews?

You mean the descendants of Abraham? Yes, I am of Slavic descent, with no Jewish genes, but am a descendent of Abraham and an heir of God's promise because I hear the Words of God's Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who said that He is the only Way to God. So God has kept the promises made to us who believe in His Son.