Replacement/Supersessionism Theology,Why it Matters

[GuessWho]

Romans 11....The Remnant of Israel

The remnant of Israel are Jews who accept Christ. Not Jews who don't even care to know who Christ is.

The church is NOT the true Israel. The Jews are still Gods chosen people. Please read the Bible and study this further.If you are honest you will see God still has a plan for the Jews. But whatever you believe is up to you.

The Church is the New Israel according to Saint Paul (Galatians 6:16). The Jews are not God's chosen people. They denied Jesus Christ. Whoever accepts Jesus Christ as Messiah (whether Jew or Gentile) becomes part of the new family of God.

Guess Who read history and get back to me. Clearly you have no idea of history or you are being obtuse.I did not say the Eastern Orthodox Church persecuted the Jews or every Christian church,I said MANY did. The Catholic church certainly did as did Protestant. The quotes I posted by some church fathers was not scolding it was antisemitic and hateful.

You are the one that is being historically ignorant by applying to the Church Fathers a modern term such "antisemitism"; a term which refers to the savage hate that Hitler had against Jews as a race. The Church Fathers spoke against Jews as a religious and spiritual entity that are blind to the truth and stick to their religious ways. The Church Fathers called "Jew" (mening judaiser, or Jewish understanding) not only the Jews but even the Christians who read the Bible in a strictly literal sense and refuse the freedom in the Holy Spirit. He was outraged by their rejection of the Messiah and he called them "pigs", a term no Christian would use today, but in his historical context, when Jew leaders had polemics with Christians, that was part not only of Chrysostom rethorics but also of Jews. Jews themselves didn't call Christians nice names. Also, if Chysostom was irremediably anti-jewish why would he praise the Jew prophets and Jew apostles? He rather speaks against their illness to accept Christ as the Messiah.

A lot of people want to make Christianity responsible for the holocaust. It seems to me that your entire thread implies the same thing. It is simply not fair and not true. Unless you have a lazy mind that likes to simplify complex realities.

You have to study the Church Fathers in their historical context not with the mentality of a postmodern person.

There are Gentiles who have rejected Christ,WE rejected Christ before we were saved.Someone loved us enough to share the Good News with us and show us the love of Christ. Where is your love for the Jewish people Guess Who? Because all Im seeing is anger.

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of God's promises to the Jews and only a few accepted Him. The rest spit Him in the face and crucified Him.

What does the fact that I don't believe Jews are God's chosen people have to do with my love for them? Why do you think I don't love them? I met a Jewish woman this august and she liked me and I liked her. It is possible that we liked each other because we didn't discuss sensitive things such as Jews and Christians.

You're as blind as the Jews! Read Romans 11,you are not the New Israel!

I read it. Could you give me verses that prove me wrong? So far I gave verses that prove we are Abraham's offspring and thus granted in the new family of God: the Christian family. I also gave you a verse from Galatians that says we are God'd chosen people, the true Israel. Only those who accept Jesus Christ are God's chosen people, not the Jews who reject Jesus Christ. That is the New Covenant of God with all people. Whoever accepts Jesus Christ can take part of God's covenant. Not because of their bloodline or race or religious status, but because of what Jesus Christ did for us all.

I didnt say God didnt fulfill His promises,you are saying that!

You elevate the Jews based on their religion and thus deny the New Testament that prohibits boasting in God on a religious exclusivity. The only boast that is allowed is through faith in Jesus Christ. Faith that Jews don't have.

So now Im not a Christian?! Funny how every discussion ends "you're not a Christian" when you cant beat people to submit to your doctrinal errors.

Whoever elevates a people on the ground of their religion instead on what Jesus Christ did for the world is a denier of Christ's salvific sacrifice.

I know how Jews feel about Christ.Once again as Romans says the Jews have been blinded,for a time. The Jews dont believe in Jesus right now. Romans 11 explains why. It also says GOD HAS NOT FORSAKEN THE JEWS.

So far, Jews are very resistant to the Holy Spirit. God doesn't force anyone to believe in Him. You come to Him freely.

You are right: God did not forsaken the Jews, it is the other way around, they forsaken God in a very coward way.

You seem very angry and bitter. Gentiles curse Christ every day,what point are you making about Jews? Unbelievers act like unbelievers,as you did once. But someone showed you the love of Jesus.Your attitude is very un-Christlike. I simply dont understand it.

So, do you. Each time someone says that the Church is the New Israel you come and link this with replacement theology and with holocaust. That is your strategy to make people feel bad about their beliefs. It is a coward strategy and un-Christlike.

It is not replacement theology, it is fulfillment theology. Why are you so angry that people believe God has done for Israel what He promised to do for them and now Gentiles too are invited to participate in the blessing?

The point I am making about the Jews is that they rejected God while more Gentiles accepted Him.

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”

 

[crossnote]

GuessWho, the only verse you quoted was Gal 6:16 to prove the Church is the New Israel...

Galatians 6:16 KJVS
[16] And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Israel of God, simply means the believing Jews, there is no reference to the Church. Notice it says AND on the Israel of God, the translations that use 'even' are in the minority and even at that does not preclude the above.
In any case, there is no sure footing to use that passage as a proof text to show the Church is the Israel of God.

 

[GuessWho]

So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.
(Rom 11:11)


Stumble= πταίω. 1aor. ἔπταισα; from a basic meaning stumble against something; intransitively and figuratively in the NT, of failing to do God's will stumble, err, sin

Fall= πίπτω. impf. ἔπιπτον; fut. mid. πεσοῦμαι; 2aor. ἔπεσον and ἔπεσα; pf. πέπτωκα; fall; (1) literally; (a) as coming down forcefully from a higher to lower level fall, drop (AC 20.9); (b) of buildings and walls collapse, fall into ruins (HE 11.30); (c) of a person, as suddenly dropping from an upright position fall down, tumble.
(Analytical Lexicon of the New Testament)

The idea is that the word for stumble is not a complete fall, but a partial fall. Too many of the replacement crowd are taking 'stumble' to mean the second meaning i.e. a complete fall to ruin.

I don't deny that but if you read all Romans you will see that Saint Paul explains that the privileged status of Israel is not a permanent one but was a mean through which God was going to accomplish His plan of salvation for the entire world. And Saint Paul also links the election of Israel with vessels of wrath thorough which, paradoxically, a lot of blessing would come out from for the Gentiles.

 

[GuessWho]

GuessWho, the only verse you quoted was Gal 6:16 to prove the Church is the New Israel...

I always assume people actually know the whole context or if they don't they go and check out of curiosity and thirst for knowledge.

Galatians 6:16 KJVS
[16] And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Israel of God, simply means the believing Jews, there is no reference to the Church. Notice it says AND on the Israel of God, the translations that use 'even' are in the minority and even at that does not preclude the above.
In any case, there is no sure footing to use that passage as a proof text to show the Church is the Israel of God.

Actually, it makes no sense if he only refers to the believing Jews since he speaks to the Galatians who were non-Jews but thought they had to get circumcised in order to be part of God's covenant because circumcision was a mean to enter God's covenant. So, he explains them that circumcision is a religious, carnal thing that not only doesn't save but also tend to boast on this outward sign rather on the cross of Jesus Christ.

He ends his sermon by saying that all what counts is the new creation and he says "peace and mercy to all who follow this rule - to the Israel of God". He doesn't say AND to the Israel of God. He implies that those who follow the rule are the Israel of God. The Jews get circumcised because they don't believe in the cross. The new creation must not get circumcised because that means you boast in circumcision and religion instead of boasting in Christ. So, the new creation is the Israel of God. And who is the new creation? Jews as a nation and religion or people who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior?

Not Circumcision but the New Creation

11 See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!
12 Those who want to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh. 14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which[a] the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to[b] the Israel of God.
17 From now on, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marksof Jesus.
18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers and sisters. Amen.

 

[JGIG]

Really late to this party, but will post anyway, as the OP has some flaws.

Im seeing many posts here lately that worry me.

Which posts?

Many? Please list and link to them for us.

It seems some Christians here dont understand replacement theology, why it is heresy and why it is dangerous. They dont know the history of this theology and the harm done to the Jewish people. So I hope to discuss it here.

Heresy? Error.

And an error that has led some into destructive behavior, others into fruitless elitism.

And those who have actually acted to harm Israelites in this world haven't been demonstrating that they are bearing fruit that Christ was/is in them, have they . . .

First a definition :Supersessionism, also called replacement theology or fulfillment theology, is a Christian theologicalview on the current status of the church in relation to the Jewish peopleand Judaism.It holds that the Christian Church has replaced the Israelites as God'schosen people

Supercessionism is a view held to by *some* Christians, not all.

and that the New Covenant has replaced or superseded the Mosaic covenant.

That was actually God's idea:

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (from Heb. 7)

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (from Heb. 8)
​

From a supersessionist's "point of view, just by continuing to exist, the Jews dissent".

Well, that would be an error, wouldn't it? And a silly one, since there are Jews who exist who believe in Jesus - they exist and by existing don't dissent.

That said, if said Jews choose to not believe in Jesus' Work as the Messiah, that is a rejection of the Gospel, yes? And that is true of ANY ethnic people group, yes?

When Jesus said this:

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (from Jn. 3)​

Who was He speaking to? All people, of course, but His audience here was . . . a bunch of Hebrews, so they are clearly not exempt from what God requires, and that is to believe on the One He sent and to love one another (Jn. 6:28-29, 1 Jn. 3:23-24).

This view directly contrasts with dual-covenant theology which holds that the Mosaic Covenant remains valid for Jews.

Back the truck up. You only described HALF of dual-covenant theology's error. Let's get the whole thing down before moving on:

Dual-covenant or two-covenant theology is unique in that it holds that the Old Covenant or the bible's Law of Moses remains valid for Jews while the New Covenant only applies to non-Jews or gentiles. (source)​

Since the New Covenant was promised to the Hebrews (Jer. 31), that can't be accurate, can it. And being error, it should be rejected.

And while the New Covenant was promised to Hebrews, it was also offered to Gentiles as the ONLY Covenant by which to draw near to God (see Eph. 2). It was to be entered into by faith, just as the Abrahamic Covenant, and is unconditional, with God making and fulfilling the promises and requirements therein. Every ethnic group enters into the New Covenant the same way: by believing in Christ.

Supersessionism formed a core tenet of the Church for the majority of its existence, and remains a common assumption among Christians.

No, it didn't. It may have formed core tenets of some belief systems, but it's not a common assumption by Christians and it's not Biblical.

One of the core tenets of Biblical Christianity is that the Body of Christ includes the concept that Jew and Gentile are one in Christ, entering into Covenant with God in Christ.

For Israel, it's the NEW Covenant; for the rest of us, it's the ONLY Covenant!

Since the Holocaust some mainstream Christian theologians and denominationshave rejected supersessionism. Wikipedia

So to open, did you know that Hilter wasn't the first to put Jews in ghettos and make them wear the yellow Star of David? Do you know that it was Pope Pius VII who began this persecution of the Jews? And that some of the church Fathers before him were antisemitic? The Jews are under attack once again and it greatly disturbs me to see "Christians" so called also persecuting Jews. So Ive started off and will continue to add to the thread along the way. Id like to discuss the history of the early church,the beginning of antisemitism, and why Christians should support,not persecute,the Jews. Feel free to add any thoughts. Please do not derail the thread for you own purposes. I will bring it back on point if you do!

When someone invokes Hitler and The Inquisition into the mix, telling us that those guys represent the Body of Christ, it's because their position is weak and needs an emotional 'punching up'.

Where are you seeing 'Jews under attack' on this forum?

Where are you seeing Christians on this forum persecuting Jews?

Where are you seeing anti-Semitism on this forum?

You have presented some half-truths attaching them to all Christians when only some Christians adhere to that theology and have claimed attacks, persecution, and anti-Semitism on this forum without offering proof.

Your methodology in selective inclusion/exclusion of information here has me wondering just what you're trying to accomplish here . . .


-JGIG

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

GuessWho, the only verse you quoted was Gal 6:16 to prove the Church is the New Israel...

KJVS
[16] And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Israel of God, simply means the believing Jews, there is no reference to the Church. Notice it says AND on the Israel of God, the translations that use 'even' are in the minority and even at that does not preclude the above.
In any case, there is no sure footing to use that passage as a proof text to show the Church is the Israel of God.

Galatians 6:16 actually says "peace upon them καί mercy καί upon the Israel of GOD". The Greek word καί also means also, which in this context makes sense.

And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy also upon the Israel of God. Galatians 6:16​

It unifies them and the Israel of GOD, rather than makes a distinction between the two. This to me just reflects the Hebrew mindset and writing style of describing the same thing in two slightly different ways, that is so prevalent in scripture.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Jesus says in Matthew 21:43 that the kingdom of GOD would be given to another nation, Peter calls GOD's people a holy nation in 1 Peter 2:9, and Paul mentions the Israel of GOD in Galatians 6:16.

Besides Judah and Israel during a temporary period in the OT, where is it said in scripture that GOD has two nations?

 

[KJV1611]

He was never the heir of the world.

And I never claimed he was

1. He was the father of many nation (not the whole world)
2. One of His offspring was given a plot of land

Again, You need to stop. Your arguments are invalid and false. your not listening to a word I say, and basing your arguments on false precepts. Thus your making yourself look bad

ROMANS 4:13 says Abraham and his seed are the heirs of the world.

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Your'e not reading anything Paul says and basing your arguments on false precepts... Abraham and his seed ARE heirs of the whole world.

 

[kaylagrl]

Really late to this party, but will post anyway, as the OP has some flaws.



Which posts?

Many? Please list and link to them for us.





Heresy? Error.

And an error that has led some into destructive behavior, others into fruitless elitism.

And those who have actually acted to harm Israelites in this world haven't been demonstrating that they are bearing fruit that Christ was/is in them, have they . . .




Supercessionism is a view held to by *some* Christians, not all.




That was actually God's idea:

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (from Heb. 7)

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (from Heb. 8)
​

Well, that would be an error, wouldn't it? And a silly one, since there are Jews who exist who believe in Jesus - they exist and by existing don't dissent.

That said, if said Jews choose to not believe in Jesus' Work as the Messiah, that is a rejection of the Gospel, yes? And that is true of ANY ethnic people group, yes?

When Jesus said this:

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (from Jn. 3)​

Who was He speaking to? All people, of course, but His audience here was . . . a bunch of Hebrews, so they are clearly not exempt from what God requires, and that is to believe on the One He sent and to love one another (Jn. 6:28-29, 1 Jn. 3:23-24).





Back the truck up. You only described HALF of dual-covenant theology's error. Let's get the whole thing down before moving on:

Dual-covenant or two-covenant theology is unique in that it holds that the Old Covenant or the bible's Law of Moses remains valid for Jews while the New Covenant only applies to non-Jews or gentiles. (source)​

Since the New Covenant was promised to the Hebrews (Jer. 31), that can't be accurate, can it. And being error, it should be rejected.

And while the New Covenant was promised to Hebrews, it was also offered to Gentiles as the ONLY Covenant by which to draw near to God (see Eph. 2). It was to be entered into by faith, just as the Abrahamic Covenant, and is unconditional, with God making and fulfilling the promises and requirements therein. Every ethnic group enters into the New Covenant the same way: by believing in Christ.




No, it didn't. It may have formed core tenets of some belief systems, but it's not a common assumption by Christians and it's not Biblical.

One of the core tenets of Biblical Christianity is that the Body of Christ includes the concept that Jew and Gentile are one in Christ, entering into Covenant with God in Christ.

For Israel, it's the NEW Covenant; for the rest of us, it's the ONLY Covenant!





When someone invokes Hitler and The Inquisition into the mix, telling us that those guys represent the Body of Christ, it's because their position is weak and needs an emotional 'punching up'.

Where are you seeing 'Jews under attack' on this forum?

Where are you seeing Christians on this forum persecuting Jews?

Where are you seeing anti-Semitism on this forum?

You have presented some half-truths attaching them to all Christians when only some Christians adhere to that theology and have claimed attacks, persecution, and anti-Semitism on this forum without offering proof.

Your methodology in selective inclusion/exclusion of information here has me wondering just what you're trying to accomplish here . . .


-JGIG

Really hard to go back over the whole 33 pages.I will try to answer some of your questions but I have three people right now on my back.

Quote "Which posts? Many? Please list and link to them for us."

Look for posts with discussions on Israel. Thats the best Im gonna do. Too many posts and pages to find and list for you.But you can research it yourself.


Quote "And those who have actually acted to harm Israelites in this world haven't been demonstrating that they are bearing fruit that Christ was/is in them, have they . . ."

I wouldnt say so,no. I was pointing out an attitude down through history that has been antisemitic and unfortunately it has been Christian in nature.

Quote "Supercessionism is a view held to by *some* Christians, not all.

I certainly hope not! No never said all do.Many on this thread dont believe Supercessionism.

Quote "Who was He speaking to? All people, of course, but His audience here was . . . a bunch of Hebrews, so they are clearly not exempt from what God requires"

Never said Jews could saved any other way than accepting Christ,which many will do,some believe all will.


Quote "And while the New Covenant was promised to Hebrews, it was also offered to Gentiles as the ONLY Covenant by which to draw near to God (see Eph. 2). It was to be entered into by faith, just as the Abrahamic Covenant, and is unconditional, with God making and fulfilling the promises and requirements therein. Every ethnic group enters into the New Covenant the same way: by believing in Christ."

Yes,I agree as I said above. They will be saved the same way we are according to Romans.Never said different. I did post from a web page that made a lot of great points,since no one was accepting the Bible verses and history I was giving. I tried to leave out certain points in the article and use it to make my case. Which from the beginning is that Replacement Theology is heresy,God is not done with the Jews, and they will be saved according to Romans 11.{remnant}

Posted too early I will finish answering in the next post.

 

[Biblelogic01]

Wait a minute! She quoted John Chrysostom and Justin the Martyr and implied they persecuted the Jews by calling them assassins of Jesus Christ. That is not the same thing with the holocaust and will never be (only a twisted mind could compare the two). If they were antisemitic than so was the New Testament, so was Jesus Christ by calling them names and so was Stephen.

If the Catholic Church accused them for the black plague and persecuted them then say that "the Catholic Church persecuted them" and don't involve the holy fathers of the Church in the killing of the Jews!

Saint John Chrysostom never preached persecuting and killing the Jews! Never!

She was quoting the main leaders of protestantism and what their thought's were on the Jews, which is what a lot of people still believe today. I believe she was pointing out the wrong in what those people were stating.

When I was in elementary my parents sent me to a Lutheran Private school.
We did not attend the Lutheran Chruch that the school was a part of though, which I did not understand at that age.
My older brother got suspended for arguing against the ideas Martin Luther had against Jews.
When I was in High School I asked my parents why we never attended the Lutheran Church, and they stated it was because of the thoughts of Lutheran's towards Jews.
Now not all Lutheran's are like that, but their churches teaches it. I have childhood friends who are "Lutheran", but do no believe in all of their teachings, such as antisemitism.

Please reference where Jesus specifically called Jews names?
Jesus called out their religous leaders for their hypocritism.
That is completely different than being antisemitic.

And with Christ's death, it was the same hypocritical leaders that had Him put to death.
To blame the entire culture of Jews for what their religious leaders did is ignorant.
That's like blaming all of the German's for what Hitler did.
Or if I were to call all Lutherans the same for their leader's teachings.

My understanding is ultimately our sins are what crucified Christ.
Not the Jews, not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the gentiles; it was our sins.

I'm Jewish, but I believe Christ is the Messiah.
I do not agree with everything the Talmud states, and again to accuse every Jew of following this is ignorant.
That's where discernment comes into place, and that's why I let the Holy Spirit guide my walk, so I have help in discerning right from wrong, because ultimately the Holy Spirit is going to know what's right and what's wrong.

A huge majority of the first Christians, were Jewish Christians.
A lot of the peopl Jesus was teaching to were Jews.
For example, the woman with an issue of running blood.
How did she know that touching the fringes of Jesus garnment would heal her?
She had faith in the teachings she learned.
In the OT teachings it states their is healing in God's wings.
Jesus most likely was wearing a tallit, which if you spread one of those out, it looks like wings.
The woman had faith that He was the Lord and touched His "wing" and it healed her instantly.
So yes, faith is what healed her, but it was faith based off of what she had been taught, which is a Jewish teaching.

Along with that, the majority of the disciples are Jewish; are you going to blame the woman with the issue of blood, or the disciples for Christ's crusifiction because they're Jewish, or because they're sinners?

 

[PeterJens]

First a definition :Supersessionism, also called replacement theology or fulfillment theology, is a Christian theological view on the current status of the church in relation to the Jewish peopleand Judaism.It holds that the Christian Church has replaced the Israelites as God'schosen people

If this is the assumption from the time of the apostles, then unless we have a good reason to believe otherwise, this is Gods view.

The dual covenant is a heresy. There is no longer a temple, or sacrifices, or a priesthood etc. What you see today as Judaism is a manufactured faith from the time after the fall of Jerusalem.

The argument against the Kingdom of God, his people being the true Israel, is that persecution of jews was a scandle.

This is no more scandalous than the murder of anabaptists or any group who did not agree with the "state" church.

If you sincerely believe that Gods people have existed from the time of Jesus, and their faith was pure, then the form of the faith has be true. If that core is Supersessionism then that is Gods will.

Too many have become zionists, and excusing horrendous treatment of palistinians, jews, christians and any other who do not agree with the behaviour of the nation of Israel.

I have not met anyone who seriously believes faithful Jews are "saved", but I am open to hearing this theology.

 

[valiant]

GuessWho, the only verse you quoted was Gal 6:16 to prove the Church is the New Israel...

Galatians 6:16 KJVS
[16] And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Israel of God, simply means the believing Jews, there is no reference to the Church. Notice it says AND on the Israel of God, the translations that use 'even' are in the minority and even at that does not preclude the above.

In the context it is quite clear that the Israel of God is the church. The letter has already said there is now neither Jew nor Greek in the Christian church, so how cane there be an Israel of God identified as Jews?

The very context has said that there is now neither circumcision nor uncircumcision but a new creation. How then can there still be circumcision which is what Israel of God as meaning Jews would imply. Paul was not that stupid.

But it is wrong to say that that is the only verse. Ephesian 2 makes plain that Gentiles who have become Christians have become part of Israel. You WERE strangers (non-Israelites) --- you are NO MORE strangers (non-Israelites).' 'You were alienated from the commonwealth of Israel -- you are now fellow-citizens'. It could not be clearer.

Furthermore 1 Peter 2.9 makes it crystal clear. Speaking to Christians who had been Gentiles he speaks of them as 'an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people' just as God had called Israel 'a peculiar possession to Me --- a kingdom of priests, a holy nation (Exodus19.5-6).

Jesus Himself taught that Christians would be Israelites. They would abide in the TRUE VINE (the true Israel of which Jesus was the representative), they would be a congregation built on Jesus Christ, they would b a part of the new nation (Matt 21.43). Jesus WAS representative Israel (out of Egypt I called my son, and baptised on Israel'sbehalf) . Thus to be in Christ is to BE an Israelite (not a Jew).

Rom 11.12-24 unquestionably demonstrates that the olive tree (God's chosen name for Israel - Jer 11.16) was composed of ALL who believed in the Messiah. Thus they were part of Israel.

In any case, there is no sure footing to use that passage as a proof text to show the Church is the Israel of God.

I have shown you otherwise.

 

[kaylagrl]

Really late to this party, but will post anyway, as the OP has some flaws.



Which posts?

Many? Please list and link to them for us.





Heresy? Error.

And an error that has led some into destructive behavior, others into fruitless elitism.

And those who have actually acted to harm Israelites in this world haven't been demonstrating that they are bearing fruit that Christ was/is in them, have they . . .




Supercessionism is a view held to by *some* Christians, not all.




That was actually God's idea:

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (from Heb. 7)

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (from Heb. 8)
​

Well, that would be an error, wouldn't it? And a silly one, since there are Jews who exist who believe in Jesus - they exist and by existing don't dissent.

That said, if said Jews choose to not believe in Jesus' Work as the Messiah, that is a rejection of the Gospel, yes? And that is true of ANY ethnic people group, yes?

When Jesus said this:

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (from Jn. 3)​

Who was He speaking to? All people, of course, but His audience here was . . . a bunch of Hebrews, so they are clearly not exempt from what God requires, and that is to believe on the One He sent and to love one another (Jn. 6:28-29, 1 Jn. 3:23-24).





Back the truck up. You only described HALF of dual-covenant theology's error. Let's get the whole thing down before moving on:

Dual-covenant or two-covenant theology is unique in that it holds that the Old Covenant or the bible's Law of Moses remains valid for Jews while the New Covenant only applies to non-Jews or gentiles. (source)​

Since the New Covenant was promised to the Hebrews (Jer. 31), that can't be accurate, can it. And being error, it should be rejected.

And while the New Covenant was promised to Hebrews, it was also offered to Gentiles as the ONLY Covenant by which to draw near to God (see Eph. 2). It was to be entered into by faith, just as the Abrahamic Covenant, and is unconditional, with God making and fulfilling the promises and requirements therein. Every ethnic group enters into the New Covenant the same way: by believing in Christ.




No, it didn't. It may have formed core tenets of some belief systems, but it's not a common assumption by Christians and it's not Biblical.

One of the core tenets of Biblical Christianity is that the Body of Christ includes the concept that Jew and Gentile are one in Christ, entering into Covenant with God in Christ.

For Israel, it's the NEW Covenant; for the rest of us, it's the ONLY Covenant!





When someone invokes Hitler and The Inquisition into the mix, telling us that those guys represent the Body of Christ, it's because their position is weak and needs an emotional 'punching up'.

Where are you seeing 'Jews under attack' on this forum?

Where are you seeing Christians on this forum persecuting Jews?

Where are you seeing anti-Semitism on this forum?

You have presented some half-truths attaching them to all Christians when only some Christians adhere to that theology and have claimed attacks, persecution, and anti-Semitism on this forum without offering proof.

Your methodology in selective inclusion/exclusion of information here has me wondering just what you're trying to accomplish here . . .


-JGIG

Continuing on....


Quote "No, it didn't. It may have formed core tenets of some belief systems, but it's not a common assumption by Christians and it's not Biblical.

No its not a common assumption by Christians today,although it is making a comeback I notice. It was certainly a core tenant of the Catholic church. And many church fathers believed this way. And I agree,its not Biblical.Hold on to your hat your about to get ripped apart for saying that.

Quote "One of the core tenets of Biblical Christianity is that the Body of Christ includes the concept that Jew and Gentile are one in Christ, entering into Covenant with God in Christ."

The Jews are still Gods chosen people,the apple of His eye.He still has a plan for the Jews. They are being gathered once again,God is bringing them back. His promise to them never changed,it was unconditional.

Quote"When someone invokes Hitler and The Inquisition into the mix, telling us that those guys represent the Body of Christ, it's because their position is weak and needs an emotional 'punching up'."

I didnt say they represented the body of Christ.Please read back.I said they represented a false theology,replacement,that has been used to persecute the Jews. I did not say all churches nor all Christians. The Danish Christians did not believe replacement theology and saved many Jews during the Holocaust as did others. So dont put words in my mouth please.


Quote "Where are you seeing 'Jews under attack' on this forum?"

Dont recall saying Jews were under attack. In the OP I said I saw posts that worry me,like the thread saying the Star of David is an occult symbol. Ive discussed in other threads with people who believe Replacement Theology and get nasty if I say it is a false doctrine. So I decided to post on this false belief to let those who didnt know that it is indeed a false theology.

Quote "Where are you seeing Christians on this forum persecuting Jews?"

Well,your honor,I didnt say people were persecuting Jews here.I said if you believe Replacement Theology heresy that it is false,that it has had a history of antisemitism behind it and that we as Christians should not support it.Never accused anyone of beating Jews in the street.

Quote "Where are you seeing anti-Semitism on this forum?"

I reported about two weeks ago on someone who was being antisemitic and were consequently banned. And as I said,if you believe Replacement Theology you are backing antisemitism.

Quote "You have presented some half-truths attaching them to all Christians"

That Miss or Mrs. is baloney and a lie. You will not put words in my mouth that I did not say!! I never accused every Christian of anything. Nor did I lie and give half truths. You will not call me a liar! Folks who know me here know I am not a liar!

Quote "when only some Christians adhere to that theology:

Ok,once again,try and LISTEN !!!!!! CLEARLY not ALL Christians believe this theology. I dont,many on here dont and have backed up what I am saying. So LISTEN instead of attacking first,how bout that.


Quote " have claimed attacks, persecution, and anti-Semitism on this forum without offering proof."

NO I HAVENT! I HAVE said Replacement Theology is antisemitic. And that its history is antisemitic. My proof is those arguing that the church has replaced the Jews. THAT IS MY PROOF! Read back through the thread. The REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY is WRONG. Now are all those that believe this theology antisemitic? Well that is why I posted the history and truth of the theology so people could understand it is wrong. It is a wrong theology,my point all along.NEVER accused ALL Christians of anything!!!!


Quote "wondering just what you're trying to accomplish here . . .

Well I dont answer to you,now do I.But since you are accusing me of being a liar and having nefarious reasons I will state again for people who seem to read with their eyes closed...

1. According to Romans 11 the Jews {remnant} will be saved.
2.They will "see Him who they have pierced" they will believe on Jesus and be saved the same way Gentiles are.
3.Gods promises to the Jews are unconditional.
4.God is not done with the Jews.They are the apple of His eye.We are to bless,pray for peace of the Jews.
5.Replacement Theology is a false Theology. The church has not replaced nor become Jews.Jews will still receive what God promised them.
6.SOME CHRISTIAN churches and SOME CHURCH FATHERS who believed and taught Replacement Theology perpetuated antisemitism and persecution of the Jews. READ HISTORY PLEASE.

Does that clear it up for everyone?!!! Or do I have to defend myself once again from being a liar???

 

[PeterJens]

Me believing That God will keep his promise to Israel IF THEY REPENT has nothing to do with whether I will get to heaven or not.

Does Israel, the 2 tribes + the 10 lost tribes still exist? I would question the faith of the Jews is a different faith than that of Moses. There is no longer a high priest or the theocracy or kings. Now the group of people who call themselves Jews are a loose group of people from many ethnic origins. There are many in the Jewish community who oppose Israel and feel it has caused massive problems for their identity and community.

But for those with a prophecy agenda, both christian and muslim, Israel is a useful tool.

I am worried that actually this political agenda is the cause of all the muslim fundamentalist argument, bolstered by miss led christians who believe in some heretical fulfillment that is not even scriptural. Too many people have too much to loose from peace in the middle east, which is the evil that will apparently never go away.

 

[JimmieD]

and why Christians should support,not persecute,the Jews.

What do you mean by "support?"

It seems that not persecuting people should be the default Christian position...for everyone. It's not simply that Christians shouldnt persecute Jews; Christians shouldnt persecute ANYONE.

But "support" may be a different matter, depending on what you mean by the term.

 

[KJV1611]

What do you mean by "support?"

It seems that not persecuting people should be the default Christian position...for everyone. It's not simply that Christians shouldnt persecute Jews; Christians shouldnt persecute ANYONE.

But "support" may be a different matter, depending on what you mean by the term.

That means send them money so they can kill more Palestinians and Syrians.

 

[valiant]

She was quoting the main leaders of protestantism and what their thought's were on the Jews, which is what a lot of people still believe today. I believe she was pointing out the wrong in what those people were stating.

The world of four hundred years ago was a violent world. All were violent to each other. Life was cheap. Most hated everyone else who differed from them. I do not think we can judge today in the light of those days and before. All anti-semitism is wrong. All anti-black is wrong. All anti-white is wrong. Violence is wrong unless in genuine self-defence. I do not believe many true Christians will condone any of these.

When I was in elementary my parents sent me to a Lutheran Private school.
We did not attend the Lutheran Chruch that the school was a part of though, which I did not understand at that age.
My older brother got suspended for arguing against the ideas Martin Luther had against Jews.
When I was in High School I asked my parents why we never attended the Lutheran Church, and they stated it was because of the thoughts of Lutheran's towards Jews.
Now not all Lutheran's are like that, but their churches teaches it. I have childhood friends who are "Lutheran", but do no believe in all of their teachings, such as antisemitism.

It is tragic if that is so. But I have never come across it in a Lutheran church here in the UK.

Please reference where Jesus specifically called Jews names?

I pass

Jesus called out their religous leaders for their hypocritism. That is completely different than being antisemitic.

Not just the leaders, the whole of Jerusalem (Matt 23.37). But He was hardly anti-Semitic. He did it on a sound basis.

And with Christ's death, it was the same hypocritical leaders that had Him put to death.

But the Jews outside at His trial called for His crucifixion.

To blame the entire culture of Jews for what their religious leaders did is ignorant.

That is true. However it went a bit deeper than that. Ordinary Jews slew Stephen, and James the Just, and tried to have Paul stoned. And later on Jews would call on the Romans to persecute the Christians.

But not all Jews were involved. And they were certainly persecuted themselves. But just as I refuse to take the blame for the early fathers, or for Luther, or for any other historical figure, so I do not blame modern Jews for what their forefather did. There is no excuse for anti-Semitism.

That's like blaming all of the German's for what Hitler did.

Agreed although many bore some guilt.

Or if I were to call all Lutherans the same for their leader's teachings.

I can't believe all Lutheran leaders are anti-Semitic. But your principle holds.

My understanding is ultimately our sins are what crucified Christ.

True

Not the Jews, not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the gentiles; it was our sins.

Which includes the Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, the Americans, and even possibly us LOL

I'm Jewish, but I believe Christ is the Messiah.

Praise God for that.

I do not agree with everything the Talmud states, and again to accuse every Jew of following this is ignorant.

Jews are as varied as any other race.

That's where discernment comes into place, and that's why I let the Holy Spirit guide my walk, so I have help in discerning right from wrong, because ultimately the Holy Spirit is going to know what's right and what's wrong.

Amen.

A huge majority of the first Christians, were Jewish Christians

.

Precisely which is why they formed the true Israel accepted by God.

A lot of the peopel Jesus was teaching to were Jews.
For example, the woman with an issue of running blood.
How did she know that touching the fringes of Jesus garnment would heal her?
She had faith in the teachings she learned.
In the OT teachings it states their is healing in God's wings.
Jesus most likely was wearing a tallit, which if you spread one of those out, it looks like wings.
The woman had faith that He was the Lord and touched His "wing" and it healed her instantly.
So yes, faith is what healed her, but it was faith based off of what she had been taught, which is a Jewish teaching.

Along with that, the majority of the disciples are Jewish; are you going to blame the woman with the issue of blood, or the disciples for Christ's crusifiction because they're Jewish, or because they're sinners?

which is why we can see the church consisting of true believer as God's true Israel made up of the large number of Jewish believers in the Messiah augmented by Gentile converts.

We must leave both unbelieving Jews and unbelieving Gentiles to God. Neither are part of the true Israel.

 

[Cassian]

JGIG,

No, it didn't. It may have formed core tenets of some belief systems, but it's not a common assumption by Christians and it's not Biblical.

One of the core tenets of Biblical Christianity is that the Body of Christ includes the concept that Jew and Gentile are one in Christ, entering into Covenant with God in Christ.

For Israel, it's the NEW Covenant; for the rest of us, it's the ONLY Covenant!

I think you stated a very large truth in this discussion. I'm still looking for when the so-called supersessionism even began, The Church, as I am Orthodox has never held to this term. Theologically and scripturally, it should be continuation. It is all about the True Isreal, not any national Israel. The Church of the NT NEVER replaced Israel, but was the continuation of the promise to Abraham of bringing in the Gentiles.

Christ came to die and redeen mankind, not some national group. In defeating death and sin for man created a NEW MAN, a new creature where neither Jew or Greek matters, poor or rich, male of female. Eph 2:13-17.

Three times national Israel broke the Covenant and twice went into captivity. The third time was during Christ's ministry here on earth. That rejection resulted in the complete destruction of the Jewish nation and complete dispersion.

The nation was only created for the purpose of bringing forth he Seed. Once the Seed came, the nation has no further function.

 

[PeterJens]

This is true schizophrenia. There is only one way to God, through Jesus, the final cornerstone of the testimony through Israel. The curtain is torn in two, the Kingdom of heaven has come to earth.

But no, wait a minute. God has to make Israel, or whatever is left of it, into His Holy nation.
Now the apostles had a hard time separating themselves from Israel, which in the end they did not. They said christians were grafted into the nation, through Jesus's blood.

Taking this view we are Israel in spiritual form. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, the prophets and all the ceremonies.

Whatever you put up as a symbol of Israel today, it is not the same faith as that practised in Jesus's time.

I would say the tribulationists and zionists want the idea of Israel being a true fulfillment of the promises, that it has been made into political existance out of guilt following the 2nd world war. Israel rather than being a pluralistic society, it is becoming a dictatorship of one religious group over another.

Islam is playing off this by stirring up the opposite hatred and bitterness. It is all insane and evil. The language and behaviour is all wrong, and christian groups are being decimated. But ofcourse that does not matter because it is "prophecy". No it is evil.

Those people who believe this will end in peace are living in delusion, it is getting worse.

If one wants to be really biblical, Israel never truly conquered Palistine , they never finished driving out the tribes which were there and compromised through their long history. Only after the exile, did they return a purer form of faith. So it was a failure as a total project, but was a success demonstrating seeing God face to face is not enough to want to walk with Him.

 

[wolfwint]

JGIG,



I think you stated a very large truth in this discussion. I'm still looking for when the so-called supersessionism even began, The Church, as I am Orthodox has never held to this term. Theologically and scripturally, it should be continuation. It is all about the True Isreal, not any national Israel. The Church of the NT NEVER replaced Israel, but was the continuation of the promise to Abraham of bringing in the Gentiles.

Christ came to die and redeen mankind, not some national group. In defeating death and sin for man created a NEW MAN, a new creature where neither Jew or Greek matters, poor or rich, male of female. Eph 2:13-17.

Three times national Israel broke the Covenant and twice went into captivity. The third time was during Christ's ministry here on earth. That rejection resulted in the complete destruction of the Jewish nation and complete dispersion.

The nation was only created for the purpose of bringing forth he Seed. Once the Seed came, the nation has no further function.[/QUOT
If so as you said, how you interprete then the OT promisses to the volk Israel (jewish nation)? F.e. in the book Joel?