Supersessionism

[Clintos]

Who believes in this?

 

[crossnote]

Nope.

 

[Left]

I don't think I do. But, give me a quick definition of it and I'll see.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I believe that the promise of faith was prior to the Sinai covenant and does not "replace" because there is really nothing to replace. But that the Sinai covenant was a temporary additive until Christ would come to fulfill the promise of faith which was before the law, and not of the law. Galatians 3:17-19, Galatians 3:21-24, Romans 4:13-14, Romans 9:8 so faith doesn't replace the law, because the law is not of faith to begin with: Galatians 3:12 but Romans 1:17 and the children of promise do not replace the children of flesh because the children of flesh were never heirs to begin with.

 

[Clintos]

I just bought a book called "when a Jew rules the world" and it mentions a lot of words that I am just beginning to comprehend like supersessionism, preterism, amillennialism/restorationism, futurism, premillenialism. I am some what of new Christian and i am trying to understand where I fit into the mix.

 

[Ken Rank]

Who believes in this?

As long as it is being defined as "replacement theology" then no, I am against that. Yet, I do believe that Christians are part of Israel. But... they do not replace Israel, just become a part of.

I also agree with @John Hyperspace in regards to faith coming before Sinai. If you read Psalms 105:8-10 you see that a promise was given to Abraham... the same went to Isaac as an oath... then to Jacob as a law... and then to Israel as an everlasting covenant. So John and I might disagree (which doesn't matter to me) on this... I see Sinai in a progression of events that begins really with Adam but for the sake of this comment, Abraham... that runs through the works of Yeshua and on to us today.

 

[Clintos]

I do believe that Christians are part of Israel. But... they do not replace Israel, just become a part of

So the Christian that believes, can become as equal to the Jew in Gods eye?

 

[Clintos]

I don't think I do. But, give me a quick definition of it and I'll see.

Supersessionism | Theopedia

 

[Left]

I'm (still) a Universalist. Basically the opposite of the theological term described.

 

[Ken Rank]

So the Christian that believes, can become as equal to the Jew in Gods eye?

Definitely... Paul wrote in Eph. 2 that we "were gentiles in the flesh" and "were aliens of the Commonwealth of Israel" but now through Christ's work are "fellow citizens."

But there is even another witness. The foreigners (non-Israelites) who came out of Egypt with Israel were said by God to be "treated as if native born," they were to "assimilate into the tribes they traveled with" and the Law was given to them as well and they would be blessed if they kept it and cursed if not. So they "became a part of Israel" in every respect.

So... if we were not an Israelite but came to the God of Israel through the Messiah of Israel... are we not also part of Israel as Paul wrote in Eph. 2? I think yes, definitely... others will say no. They are entitled to their opinion as I am mine. Be blessed!

 

[crossnote]

The Land promises were given on an unconditional basis to the Jews not the Church. The Church has no claim to physical lands.

 

[Clintos]

Universalist

Is this where there is more then one path to God? and that all of human kind will be saved?

 

[Left]

Is this where there is more then one path to God? and that all of human kind will be saved?

"All are saved" is the simplest way of putting it.

 

[Clintos]

It says in the book that I an reading that supersessionists method of interpretation approaches the bible in reverse. It begins with the New Testament and then seeks to reinterpret or completely revise the original meaning of the Old Testament.

 

[Ken Rank]

The Land promises were given on an unconditional basis to the Jews not the Church. The Church has no claim to physical lands.

Israel is not just Jews.... and when we read "Jews" every time we see the word "Israel" we lose context.

 

[crossnote]

Israel is not just Jews.... and when we read "Jews" every time we see the word "Israel" we lose context.

Whatever, I've heard all the excuses, my point is is that Israel is not the Church.

 

[Ken Rank]

Whatever, I've heard all the excuses, my point is is that Israel is not the Church.

I believe we are. Yeshua said, "I have NOT BEEN SENT BUT to the lost sheep of the House of ISRAEL." He didn't say, "House of JUDAH," and there is a Scriptural, historical, and prophetic difference.

And, what I shared wasn't an "excuse," I am not even sure what that was supposed to mean? If we don't agree we don't agree, but don't force the discussion to drop below the level of adulthood.

 

[crossnote]

I believe we are. Yeshua said, "I have NOT BEEN SENT BUT to the lost sheep of the House of ISRAEL." He didn't say, "House of JUDAH," and there is a Scriptural, historical, and prophetic difference.

I find the whole distinction thing between Jew/Judah/Israel etc., very obfuscating as the terms are often interchangeable. So people pick their specialized definition to make a case.
There were promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the believing twelve tribes that do not pertain to the Church, especially dealing with the Land.
The 'Lost sheep of Israel' should be seen in terms of Romans 11 and Paul's inclusion (tribe of Benjamin) of himself.

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
(Rom 11:1)
etc.

 

[Ken Rank]

I find the whole distinction thing between Jew/Judah/Israel etc., very obfuscating as the terms are often interchangeable. So people pick their specialized definition to make a case.
There were promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the believing twelve tribes that do not pertain to the Church, especially dealing with the Land.
The 'Lost sheep of Israel' should be seen in terms of Romans 11 and Paul's inclusion (tribe of Benjamin) of himself.

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
(Rom 11:1)
etc.

Your view of Romans 11 and mine are probably not in line. No matter... just replying to say that there is a distinction between Judah and Israel (or Judah and Joseph or Judah and Ephraim) over 160 times in the Tanach. There are times when they are being used interchangeably, but that is more in the NT than the OT.

 

[crossnote]

Your view of Romans 11 and mine are probably not in line. No matter... just replying to say that there is a distinction between Judah and Israel (or Judah and Joseph or Judah and Ephraim) over 160 times in the Tanach. There are times when they are being used interchangeably, but that is more in the NT than the OT.

Yes, there is that distinction but when I said 'Jews' I meant generically those believing through the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There are some physical promises that were given to them that weren't given to the Church...yes the Church shares in the spiritual blessings of Israel though.