Supersessionism
Much has been said about John Hagee's Zionism today. In light of that I will make mention of the following:
I read a decent, if rather too short, article today, namely Bruce Longenecker's, "On Israel's God and God's Israel: Assessing Supersessionism in Paul", JTS 58, no. 1 (2007): 26–44.
From the abstract: 'Does the church replace ethnic Israel in Paul's thinking (as so many have imagined throughout the history of the Christian church)? Or is ethnic Israel on a separate salvific path by way of her covenant election (as many are now currently advocating)? Or are there other dimensions to be considered?'
Longenecker arguably rightly rejects, in critical dialogue with Stanley Stowers' A Rereading of Romans, the Sonderweg option, that Israel has a way of salvation independent of Christ. Of course, on certain moral grounds one can see why such a view obtained a foothold in NT scholarship, but I still do not understand how it ever became so popular in the name of the Apostle Paul. Longenecker concludes that Paul's theology 'included a type of supersessionism over against non-Christian forms of Judaism' (34). Right. However, Longenecker is very careful to formulate his position in contradistinction to the 'replacement virus' (38). Indeed! The replacement view is rightly identified as a virus, a position the Apostle Paul would of course never have accepted. He asks some thought provoking questions towards the end of the article. In particular, these stuck with me:
'I wonder whether we can afford to ignore the handful of Jewish interpreters who have seen Paul's supersessionism as something of a laudable development in one way or another within the context of first-century Judaism/Judaisms? Is there scope for seeing Paul's supersessionism as in some sense a positive development in some of its goals—regardless of the veracity of its truth claims?' (41)
posted by Chris Tilling @ 8:14 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
I am not sure the "Church" replaces Israel as much as it is incorporated into Israel such that now the issue no longer ethnicity but faith - in some ways it is a fulfillment more than a replacement (was there anything to replace by the time of Christ?). Israel now includes all people who have the faith of Abraham which is in turn really faith in Christ.
Hi Brian,
Problem I have with this is Rom. 11 Give it a read again and let me know what you think.
by on certain moral grounds do you mean the (understandable) deep desire for universalism to be true?
and with what Brian said, is the issue one of getting our systematics a bit skewiff?
seeing us as fulfilling God's promises for Israel, not Christ?
that would lead us into thinking we are wrapped up into Israel, not Christ, that our salvation lies in our unity with Israel, not with Christ?
it's taking the 2nd cousin once removed, and making them our first cousin. to use a really poor analogy!
Well, to answer psychodougie - I do believe Christ is the true fulfillment of God's promises to Israel (and is indeed the true Israel) and the issue becomes Israel is reconstituted to include all those who are "in Christ" (again not an issue of ethnicity but faith).
Chris, in regards to Rom 11 I guess I'll need some help - I still see inclusion and that salvation is by faith not ethnicity - God isn't rejecting his people but expanding them to include all peoples and all nations.
This is not an easy issue to discuss. There are lots of twists and turns to watch out for. no?
Hi Dougie,
"by on certain moral grounds do you mean the (understandable) deep desire for universalism to be true?"
I actually meant the "postmodern" sensibility that each has his or her own way, their own truth.
"seeing us as fulfilling God's promises for Israel, not Christ?"
Yes, I hear you - I like the analogy! But notice that it is believers in Corinth (albeit in Christ) who were inaugurating the "promises" cited at the end of 2 Cor. 6.
Hi Brian, for sure you are right - the subject is not at all simple. In Rom. 11 I see Paul speaking of a future for ethnic Israel, albeit one that will find its hope in the Messiah. The salvation of Gentiles is to a degree distinguished from the salvation of Israel. Perhaps I should explain my attempted point more, on this?!
Paul teaches a "partial and temporary" supercessionism. Now his heart is broken for "Israel in the Flesh," but in God's time "all Israel will be saved."
The question for us is--are we only allowed to reason exegetically from the words Paul wrote--or are we allowed to follow Paul in theological reasoning on the subject in light of God's faithfulness to his covenant--and in light of subsequent history.
I'm not sure "ethnic Israel" is quite the point. Paul is concerned about historic Israel as a covenant People. God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never was a racist covenant. But the question for us Christians is whether those who share the faith of Abraham have a share in justification of Abraham. Or has Judaism become a dead religion? Are those Jews born after Christ who trust in the God of Abraham and David worse off than those born before Christ.
I don't see how defining "all Israel" as "Christians" accomplishes anything but to make a meaningless tautology out of Paul's anguish for his brethren in the flesh.
As a side note, the subject of the Receptzionsgeschichte of "pas/pantes" in Romans would make an interesting study. When does "all" mean "all" and when does it mean "all of those to whom it applies."
CHRIS: "Longenecker arguably rightly rejects...that Israel has a way of salvation independent of Christ."
ED: The reminds me, has the Vatican ever admitted that there are multiple ways of salvation indepdendent of the Catholic Church?
"Israel now includes all people who have the faith of Abraham which is in turn really faith in Christ."
"Longnecker . . . rejects that Israel has a way of salvation apart from Christ."
The question is: Must one have a pre-mortem cognitive faith in Jesus Christ (that includes a knowledge of his deity, his death on the cross for our sins, his resurrection, etc.)to have a chance at future salvation?
If so, do we have to assume that all of the OT believers actually had such an explicit cognitive faith, i.e., a faith that is more than trust in the grace and mercy and promises of the God of Abraham.
I know that some try to find this kind of explicit messianic faith in the OT--and it results in some very strained exegesis.
If Abrahamic faith = faith in Christ; does that mean Abraham understood the Nicene creed and believed accordingly, or does it mean that anyone who trusts in the mercy and faithfulness of God really has a form of Christian faith?
OR, do we say faith in the God of Abraham was good enough until Jesus Christ came, but now a new requirement is added; and the paradoxical result is that his coming really resulted in condemnation for the majority of Israel.
Hi Mark,
“Are those Jews born after Christ who trust in the God of Abraham and David worse off than those born before Christ”
A great question, one which we should bring to Paul.
“I don't see how defining "all Israel" as "Christians" accomplishes anything but to make a meaningless tautology out of Paul's anguish for his brethren in the flesh”
I agree with you – at the moment!
“As a side note, the subject of the Receptzionsgeschichte of "pas/pantes" in Romans would make an interesting study. When does "all" mean "all" and when does it mean "all of those to whom it applies."”
Actually, a study on this has just been completed by Gudrun Holtz: Damit Gott sei alles in allem. Studien zum paulinischen und frühjüdischen Universalismus. At a mere $204!!!
Hi Edward, good question. No idea, to be honest!
Hi Mark,
You are asking some FANTASTIC questions!!
“Must one have a pre-mortem cognitive faith in Jesus Christ (that includes a knowledge of his deity, his death on the cross for our sins, his resurrection, etc.)to have a chance at future salvation?”
This is an important question. I am not sure I would answer ‘yes’. What do you say?
“I know that some try to find this kind of explicit messianic faith in the OT--and it results in some very strained exegesis.”
I think it is a search bound to fail, at least in terms of the faith you mentioned above.
Your last paragraph raises an important point that seems to be addressed to an extent in Rom 9-10.
Great comments, Mark, really stimulating!
Edward - Vatican II, with funky terms like Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium, had a fairly positive view to other religions.
Mark/Chris/Brian - do you think there is more light to be shed on the before/after Jesus thing with reference to Israel - in the past... now God's full revelation is to be found only in his Christ?
any before stuff, tho surely more theorising with regards to the details, is in light of to what degree YHWH chose to reveal himself to his chosen people
"any before stuff, tho surely more theorising with regards to the details, is in light of to what degree YHWH chose to reveal himself to his chosen people"
Agreed
One Final Point:
Can Israel be expected to "see" what we see in terms of God's revelation in Christ--since there is a double veil over their eyes:
1. The one that God put there for his mysterious but merciful purposes.
2. The one that we Gentiles added in our own perverse stupidity--i.e. the veil of 1900 years of persecution, forced conversions, the shoah, etc.
We Gentiles have presented faith in Christ as a matter of religious conversion, i.e., for Israel denying and abandoning their heritage and covenant with God.
Post a Comment
<< Home