|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Supersessionism
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Since the matter of Christian seders has come up recently (it's that time of year again! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ), and one person has suggested that they are uncomfortable with them on the grounds of the notion of supersessionism, I thought I'd ask: What are Shipmates' views on (and/or how do they interpret) supersessionism, i.e., that in some sense the Church has taken the place of the Israelites?
My own understanding of this--as I understand orthodox Christian theology--is a bit more complicated than a simple replacement. (Full disclosure: I'm Jewish by blood, though not raised in any religion, and a Christian by faith.) I'd argue that the Church transcends, rather than simply replaces, the old covenants--certainly I do not believe that a person who is Jewish, who comes to know Jesus as the Messiah, is bound by the old dietary laws, for example--but that doesn't mean that non-Christian Jews don't still have a special relationship with God. However, I also believe that everyone who is saved (Jew and non-Jew alike) is saved by what Jesus did, rather than by adherence to the Law.
To me, the above is pretty basic Christianity, but I am sure not everyone will agree. (And, of course, non-Christians--Jewish and Gentile alike--would not view things this way, which makes interfaith dialogue an area to be very polite in...)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
Gentile Christians are wild olive branches grafted onto the tree of the people of Israel's covenant with God, who in his divine mercy extended salvation to us as well as a free gift. What a blessing, to be grafted onto the chosen people!
Because we as Christians have inflicted exponentially more violence of Jews than vice versa, we have to be proportionally more careful to respect the integrity of the Jewish covenant with God. In other words, a Christian saying "Jews who do not accept Jesus Christ are not saved" is more dangerous than a Jew saying "Jesus is/was not the Christ," whatever we may think of the relative objective truth of the statements.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I would argue that the Church is Israel (and I would say that the olive tree analogy demonstrates this). Also St. Paul seems to suggest in a couple of his epistles that the old law is dead, that it died with Christ on the cross.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
who in his divine mercy extended salvation to us as well as a free gift
I'm a bit confused by what I think I hear you saying here--do you mean you believe that Jews, just by heritage, go to Heaven? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
who in his divine mercy extended salvation to us as well as a free gift
I'm a bit confused by what I think I hear you saying here--do you mean you believe that Jews, just by heritage, go to Heaven?
One could be forgiven if one read Paul to say so in Romans 11:26.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
I have long thought that the Apostles made a mistake (well-intended, to be sure, but a mistake) when they decided that Gentile Christians were not bound to follow the 613 commandments ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
who in his divine mercy extended salvation to us as well as a free gift
I'm a bit confused by what I think I hear you saying here--do you mean you believe that Jews, just by heritage, go to Heaven?
One could be forgiven if one read Paul to say so in Romans 11:26.
Or that Jews go to heaven the same way anyone else goes to heaven-- through the atoning work of Christ-- whether they believe in it or not. But that's another thread.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Starting with the 'who gets to go to heaven' argument is absolutely the wrong starting point. This allows Christians to appoint themselves with great hubris as gatekeepers for something that's none of their business. Too much debate with swords in hands.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Gentile Christians are wild olive branches grafted onto the tree of the people of Israel's covenant with God, who in his divine mercy extended salvation to us as well as a free gift. What a blessing, to be grafted onto the chosen people!
Because we as Christians have inflicted exponentially more violence of Jews than vice versa, we have to be proportionally more careful to respect the integrity of the Jewish covenant with God. In other words, a Christian saying "Jews who do not accept Jesus Christ are not saved" is more dangerous than a Jew saying "Jesus is/was not the Christ," whatever we may think of the relative objective truth of the statements.
Totally agree with this.
Supercessionism is frowned on by the mainline denominations. A collection of statements here.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
What "mainline denominations" are these then? The belief that the Church is Israel is fairly mainstream, I thought. Orthodox, RC, Anglican etc. Or did everything change when the modernists a freemasons took over?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
My reading of Scripture is that Israel did not have a covenant with God, he had a covenant with them. It was given without revocation.
The Jews were God's elect even when they were faithless. He called them back to himself.
The Torah was given by God and has never been rescinded - Jesus himself testified to that.
The Jews therefore are not saved by their keeping of commandments but by God's own promises (which incidentally, or rather essentially, include the land of Israel itself).
The death of Christ is only valid because it was made in accordance with the sin offerings of the Mosaic covenant. It ended the sacrificial system - interestingly even the Jews no longer make sacrifices) but the Apostles were quite clear that the only people to not need to follow the Torah are the Gentile converts into Messianic Judiasm.
The Gentiles are brought into the covenant by grace, not election (even though we don't need to follow the Torah) and Israel, still under the covenant) is being made to wait until the time of the gentiles is fulfilled; when that event happens and Christ returns, the Jews will enter their full heritage and the covenant will be ratified in full and Israel will stretch from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean and Jesus will reign as King in Jerusalem.
The idea that the Church has replaced Israel has been the foundation for most of the antiSemitism in the west. It is hateful.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My reading of Scripture is that Israel did not have a covenant with God, he had a covenant with them. It was given without revocation.
The Jews were God's elect even when they were faithless. He called them back to himself.
The Torah was given by God and has never been rescinded - Jesus himself testified to that.
The Jews therefore are not saved by their keeping of commandments but by God's own promises (which incidentally, or rather essentially, include the land of Israel itself).
The death of Christ is only valid because it was made in accordance with the sin offerings of the Mosaic covenant. It ended the sacrificial system - interestingly even the Jews no longer make sacrifices) but the Apostles were quite clear that the only people to not need to follow the Torah are the Gentile converts into Messianic Judiasm.
The Gentiles are brought into the covenant by grace, not election (even though we don't need to follow the Torah) and Israel, still under the covenant) is being made to wait until the time of the gentiles is fulfilled; when that event happens and Christ returns, the Jews will enter their full heritage and the covenant will be ratified in full and Israel will stretch from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean and Jesus will reign as King in Jerusalem.
The idea that the Church has replaced Israel has been the foundation for most of the antiSemitism in the west. It is hateful.
Yes … When an Observant Israelite keeps the 613 commandments it isn't anything about achieving "salvation," but is sign of the particular special relationship between the people of Israel and Adonai Elohim, the God of Israel (see: Deuteronomy 4:5-8) ..
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
We don't believe that the Church has replaced Israel, we believe that the Church is Israel. A subtle but important difference. Whatever people in the past may have done has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of the said belief. And the idea that the Jews will be saved merely on account of being Jewish, well, is so against the Gospel as to make it void.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My reading of Scripture is that Israel did not have a covenant with God, he had a covenant with them. It was given without revocation.
The Jews were God's elect even when they were faithless. He called them back to himself.
The Torah was given by God and has never been rescinded - Jesus himself testified to that.
The Jews therefore are not saved by their keeping of commandments but by God's own promises (which incidentally, or rather essentially, include the land of Israel itself).
Israel believed that they had been given a special relationship with God. In fact, you can see in the Old Testament plenty of signs that this belief was being challenged by the prophets, who saw that God's relationship was not restricted to one race but to all of the world. To put it bluntly, Israel was wrong. There was no "special relationship". Israel simply had the privilege of being the main conduit through which the revelation of God's intrinsic nature came.
Through Jesus, we see the continuation of this process of challenging the presumptions. God's love is open to all.
The "Church" has not superseded "Israel" for the simple reason that neither the Church nor Israel can claim a "special relationship". God's love is wider, deeper and higher than that.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
but the Apostles were quite clear that the only people to not need to follow the Torah are the Gentile converts into Messianic Judiasm
Oh crap, does that mean I can't eat bacon anymore? (Somehow I don't think this follows...)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What "mainline denominations" are these then? The belief that the Church is Israel is fairly mainstream, I thought. Orthodox, RC, Anglican etc. Or did everything change when the modernists a freemasons took over?
Supersessionism was certainly explicitly condemned in my RC confirmation classes.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
ChastMastr: Oh crap, does that mean I can't eat bacon anymore? (Somehow I don't think this follows...)
If I understand Mudfrog right, you're saved anyway on account of being Jewish. So if I were you, I'd go out and do some serious sinning.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
My own understanding, by the way, is that since Christians (of all kinds, Jew and Gentile) are under the new covenant, we are indeed no longer required to adhere to things like the old dietary laws, apart from charity toward those whose consciences might be troubled by, say, eating meat sacrificed to idols. Isn't the New Testament pretty clear about this?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Starting with the 'who gets to go to heaven' argument is absolutely the wrong starting point. This allows Christians to appoint themselves with great hubris as gatekeepers for something that's none of their business. Too much debate with swords in hands.
I think the nature of salvation is pretty critical, honestly, and it doesn't have to be about hubris.
Indeed, isn't this matter pretty central? Through the New Covenant, through Jesus Christ the foretold Messiah, people are redeemed and saved from condemnation to Hell, able to be with God forever. The question of how the Old Covenant with the earthly Israel is affected by this is what's at issue here, isn't it?
[ 28. March 2015, 18:03: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What "mainline denominations" are these then? The belief that the Church is Israel is fairly mainstream, I thought. Orthodox, RC, Anglican etc. Or did everything change when the modernists a freemasons took over?
Supersessionism was certainly explicitly condemned in my RC confirmation classes.
Oh I don't doubt that. Nevertheless all one has to do is go back as recently as Pius XII and his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi to see confirmation in the belief of "supercessionism".
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I never said that 'being Jewish' automatically saves you! Jesus himself said that claiming Abraham as your father doesn't 'get you in' (or words to that effect) - and that condemns Muslims too who think that because they are 'an Abrahamic faith' that makes them right with God. (It doesn't).
I am talking about the covenant. The Mosaic and Davidic covenants still stand and one day Israel will be fully established according to the promises that have never been repealed.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
As I understand it, it is not that the Church replaces Israel ('supersession') but that the Church containing both Jews and Gentiles is continuous with Israel in the 'new covenant' prophetically promised in OT times. Jews who have rejected the idea of Jesus as the Messiah have effectively put themselves out of this continuity but have not been wholly rejected by God. And the sooner we get back to evangelising Jews so they may enjoy the benefits of their own 'new covenant', the better...
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I think the nature of salvation is pretty critical, honestly, and it doesn't have to be about hubris.
Indeed, isn't this matter pretty central? Through the New Covenant, through Jesus Christ the foretold Messiah, people are redeemed and saved from condemnation to Hell, able to be with God forever. The question of how the Old Covenant with the earthly Israel is affected by this is what's at issue here, isn't it?
As soon as we talk of foretelling and the old covenant, we have stiff necked Jews refusing to trade in their old model for the new, and we're doing violence to them. I don't buy the saved from condemnation idea at all. There's no condemnation. All are chosen. All are redeemed.
You and I and everyone else can travel on the road to redemption everyday if only treat other people just a little more like we'd like to be treated. Salvation is not something you get later, it's something you can get now, and you can pass it along. The condemnation is also right now.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As soon as we talk of foretelling and the old covenant, we have stiff necked Jews refusing to trade in their old model for the new
Well, Jesus did say he was a stumbling-block.
quote:
and we're doing violence to them.
We don't have to do violence to anyone.
quote:
I don't buy the saved from condemnation idea at all. There's no condemnation. All are chosen. All are redeemed.
Well, I believe God would like that, but I don't believe in universalism. I wish I could but both free will and the words of Jesus Himself seem to make that not the case.
quote:
You and I and everyone else can travel on the road to redemption everyday if only treat other people just a little more like we'd like to be treated. Salvation is not something you get later, it's something you can get now, and you can pass it along. The condemnation is also right now.
I believe we are commanded to treat others the way we'd like to be treated. I do agree that our salvation does begin now, yes, but certainly Christians are to wait in joyful hope for the world that is to come, both when we die and in the new Creation. As for condemnation, I suppose that could also be said to begin now too, though it's not the same as final Hell.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think the basic problem is that supersessionism seems to follow from some fairly central doctrines of Christianity. There might be reason to reject some of those doctrines but if they survive those reasons, they're strong enough to survive the charge of supersessionism. For example, I think there's good reason to reject the idea that you have to explicitly believe in Jesus in order to be saved. But if someone is ok with atheists or Hindus not being saved because they don't believe in Jesus it's a bit of an ask for them to object to Jews not being saved on those terms.
I think it's a fairly basic commitment of Christianity that Jesus is God's gift to both Gentiles and Jews, and that in Jesus all nations and philosophies and religions, Gentiles and Jews, find their fulfilment.(*) It's a fairly basic commitment that Christianity is a legitimate continuation of the religion of the First and Second Temples. I agree that we should honour the continuing devotion of Jewish people to our Lord and their Lord. But we can't do so in a way that abandons either of those other commitments. I would be reluctant to agree that Judaism is still privileged over Islam, for example.
(*) I say in Jesus not in the systematic doctrinal system of any branch of Christianity as it currently stands. The identity of the fulfilment with Christian systematic theology probably has to wait for the parousia.
[ 28. March 2015, 22:42: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
but the Apostles were quite clear that the only people to not need to follow the Torah are the Gentile converts into Messianic Judiasm
Oh crap, does that mean I can't eat bacon anymore? (Somehow I don't think this follows...)
Really? Where? I don't see that anywhere in Acts 15. The letter written by the Jerusalem council is specifically addressed to Gentile converts and does indeed give them the "get out of Torah free card" but I don't see anywhere in the chapter where it addresses Jewish Christians one way or the other.
The context of Acts suggests to me rather that, unlike us, the 1st c. Jewish believers didn't really see keeping the Torah as a burden. You don't see anybody really trying to find a way out of it (of course, they'd already had that circumcision thing taken care of, once you get past that the rest is a cake walk...) I'm not a 1st c Jew, so I could be totally wrong, but I rather get the sense they thought of the Mosaic law, well, as a covenant-- as a sign of their relationship with God. Like a wedding ring. Which is why you just don't see the issue of "hey, do we really still have to keep all these laws?" coming up until you have (uncircumcised) Gentile converts.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
but the Apostles were quite clear that the only people to not need to follow the Torah are the Gentile converts into Messianic Judiasm
Oh crap, does that mean I can't eat bacon anymore? (Somehow I don't think this follows...)
Really? Where? I don't see that anywhere in Acts 15. The letter written by the Jerusalem council is specifically addressed to Gentile converts and does indeed give them the "get out of Torah free card" but I don't see anywhere in the chapter where it addresses Jewish Christians one way or the other.
The context of Acts suggests to me rather that, unlike us, the 1st c. Jewish believers didn't really see keeping the Torah as a burden. You don't see anybody really trying to find a way out of it (of course, they'd already had that circumcision thing taken care of, once you get past that the rest is a cake walk...) I'm not a 1st c Jew, so I could be totally wrong, but I rather get the sense they thought of the Mosaic law, well, as a covenant-- as a sign of their relationship with God. Like a wedding ring. Which is why you just don't see the issue of "hey, do we really still have to keep all these laws?" coming up until you have (uncircumcised) Gentile converts.
Yes … According to the texts, it was Paul (Saul) of Tarsus who had personal difficulties with The Torah, which he thoroughly misunderstood, taking it as a huge burden rather than the gift that it was and is …
I prefer the *take* on The Torah offered by Rabbi Harold Kushner --
"Some people think that what I want more than anything else is to eat a pork chop, but that Mean Old God won't let me … But, think about it -- Billions of people in the world, and God cares what I have for lunch … !!!"
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
My own understanding, by the way, is that since Christians (of all kinds, Jew and Gentile) are under the new covenant, we are indeed no longer required to adhere to things like the old dietary laws, apart from charity toward those whose consciences might be troubled by, say, eating meat sacrificed to idols. Isn't the New Testament pretty clear about this?
I don't really have an alternative to offer here, but this has me curious... how is this different from dispensationalism? Or is it?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
My own understanding, by the way, is that since Christians (of all kinds, Jew and Gentile) are under the new covenant, we are indeed no longer required to adhere to things like the old dietary laws, apart from charity toward those whose consciences might be troubled by, say, eating meat sacrificed to idols. Isn't the New Testament pretty clear about this?
I don't really have an alternative to offer here, but this has me curious... how is this different from dispensationalism? Or is it?
Paul was clear about that …
But so was The Lord Jesus of Nazareth (see, e.g.: Matthew 23:1-3; etc.) ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
My own understanding, by the way, is that since Christians (of all kinds, Jew and Gentile) are under the new covenant, we are indeed no longer required to adhere to things like the old dietary laws, apart from charity toward those whose consciences might be troubled by, say, eating meat sacrificed to idols. Isn't the New Testament pretty clear about this?
I don't really have an alternative to offer here, but this has me curious... how is this different from dispensationalism? Or is it?
Paul was clear about that …
But so was The Lord Jesus of Nazareth (see, e.g.: Matthew 23:1-3; etc.) ...
Paul was clear about whether or not that particular pov aligns with dispensationalism? How prescient of him.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
but the Apostles were quite clear that the only people to not need to follow the Torah are the Gentile converts into Messianic Judiasm
Oh crap, does that mean I can't eat bacon anymore? (Somehow I don't think this follows...)
Really? Where? I don't see that anywhere in Acts 15. The letter written by the Jerusalem council is specifically addressed to Gentile converts and does indeed give them the "get out of Torah free card" but I don't see anywhere in the chapter where it addresses Jewish Christians one way or the other.
The context of Acts suggests to me rather that, unlike us, the 1st c. Jewish believers didn't really see keeping the Torah as a burden. You don't see anybody really trying to find a way out of it (of course, they'd already had that circumcision thing taken care of, once you get past that the rest is a cake walk...) I'm not a 1st c Jew, so I could be totally wrong, but I rather get the sense they thought of the Mosaic law, well, as a covenant-- as a sign of their relationship with God. Like a wedding ring. Which is why you just don't see the issue of "hey, do we really still have to keep all these laws?" coming up until you have (uncircumcised) Gentile converts.
Yes, I think you're ringtone this. The issue in Acts 15 is how Gentiles and Jews co-exist in predominantly Jewish churches. It's about Gentiles valuing and respecting the distinctive practices of Jews whilst not needing to become Jews in order to become Christians. In predominantly Gentile churches the prohibition form, for example, eating meat with blood in it, wasn't an issue. Paul takes a similar tack in Romans 13 when encouraging respect of differing views about matters such as observance of different days for reasons of faith, and dietary preferences.
Jews express their devotion to God through their customs and practices. As long as these were expressions of worship, rather than a substitute for grace, the apostles sought to honour them, and required Gentiles to respect them.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Or did everything change when the modernists a freemasons took over?
Bloody hell - that's a random confluence of unrelated schemes. Sort of like spaghetti and fedoras.
I'm a universalist, albeit a christocentric one, so the "eternal" outcome is not a biggie. But this side of the eschaton I these days go for parallel development.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
My own understanding, by the way, is that since Christians (of all kinds, Jew and Gentile) are under the new covenant, we are indeed no longer required to adhere to things like the old dietary laws, apart from charity toward those whose consciences might be troubled by, say, eating meat sacrificed to idols. Isn't the New Testament pretty clear about this?
I don't really have an alternative to offer here, but this has me curious... how is this different from dispensationalism? Or is it?
I don't know enough about dispensationalism to know if it is or not. I've encountered it before, but from my cursory look at Wikipedia, it looks like a fairly recent (1800s) array of doctrines.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Oh crap, does that mean I can't eat bacon anymore? (Somehow I don't think this follows...)
Really? Where?
Jesus declared all food clean in the Gospel of Mark, and also there is Peter's vision.
I hope no one here will think badly of me for eating bacon today. I truly don't believe I'm sinning to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Yes … According to the texts, it was Paul (Saul) of Tarsus who had personal difficulties with The Torah, which he thoroughly misunderstood
... er, yes, for those of us who take Paul as an authority in these matters, we won't agree that he misunderstood the Torah at all.
[ 29. March 2015, 08:01: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Yes, given Paul/Saul's background as a Pharisee, it does seem rather odd to suggest he misunderstood the Law. Would it be better to suggest that his understanding of the Law changed after his conversion - he still saw it as something good, God-given, something that was a sign of God's faithfulness to Israel and which was necessary when it was given, but which is now fulfilled by Christ and therefore no longer needed.
My own (vague and quite probably ill-informed) understanding is that Christ's coming is not a sign of God doing something different to or "superceding" God's promises and covenant to Israel, but of God fulfilling them in Christ. God shows His faithfulness to His people by sending them Jesus who will return God's people to God. But then it widens out from there and it turns out the Gentiles are grafted in, too (though I'd like to say that us Gentiles aren't just grafted in: in Jesus, we are fully part of the people of God as well).
Also, talk of a new covenant isn't limited to Christianity: there's that passage in Jeremiah (which I'm afraid I don't have the time to find now) where the prophet speaks of God making a new covenant with the people because they had broken the old one, hence their exile. Yes, that covenant is broken, but God still shows His faithfulness to His people by making a new (better?) covenant with them, writing the Law onto their hearts.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by ChastMastr
quote:
I don't know enough about dispensationalism to know if it is or not. I've encountered it before, but from my cursory look at Wikipedia, it looks like a fairly recent (1800s) array of doctrines.
'Dispensationalism' and the oddball ideas about the 'Rapture' found in the 'Left Behind' books are indeed early 1800s ideas. Apart from my objections about 'Second Coming' theology in general, I find these ideas problematic because they tend to end in treating Jews as cannon fodder in prophetic fulfilment, and in support of Israel regardless of how ethical Israel is actually being.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What "mainline denominations" are these then? The belief that the Church is Israel is fairly mainstream, I thought. Orthodox, RC, Anglican etc. Or did everything change when the modernists a freemasons took over?
You obviously didt read the ling - which lists the RCC, C of E, Methodist etc.
Then they've clearly changed their teaching.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Apart from my objections about 'Second Coming' theology in general, I find these ideas problematic because they tend to end in treating Jews as cannon fodder in prophetic fulfilment, and in support of Israel regardless of how ethical Israel is actually being.
Amen to all three of those.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
A simple practical test perhaps: Do you believe that a Jew should become a Christian, and thereafter does not have to follow the Mosaic law any longer (though s/he may do so)? If yes, then whatever else you may say, you are de facto a supersessionist. I sure am.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Then they've clearly changed their teaching.
I'm not sure that they have, at least in the case of the RCC.
The RCC remains supersessionist, of course, as far as the Mosaic covenant is concerned. This is not to deny the special historical role of the Jews and its continuity in the sense expressed by St Paul (and the OP in the 2nd paragraph). However, the irrevocable covenant was rather the one with Abraham. A "lex orandi, lex credendi" (law of prayer, law of belief) analysis of the RC liturgy can be found here.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
A common modern form is 'sweeping supersessionism', the idea that what happened through Christ swept aside everything that had gone before. There is no continuity between the new and old 'modes'. Kasemann and J.L.Martyn are examples of this.
Paul's analysis is not that ethnic Israel is supplanted by 'the church', but that ethnic Israel, its Torah and its election is summed up in Israel's Messiah in his death and resurrection, which leads to an Israel defined in terms of ethnic Israel's Messiah. Continuity, not replacement, is the key here.
Paul believed that the Abrahamic covenant had been successfully concluded through Jesus, and that Israel continues from that point. He realised that the declaration of Jesus as Israel's Messiah follows on from Judaism, but leads it into a fundamentally different phase.
To quote Dunn:
quote:
The coming of Jesus Messiah and of the Spirit into the hearts of those who believe in this Jesus, has fulfilled Israel's hope for the age to come. It is fulfilled hope that he had in mind, not superseded hope.
Incidentally, I stumbled on this
quote:
O’Reilly’s telling takes as fact a number of time-worn myths that have been repeatedly disavowed by scholars. Characterizing the apostle Paul as a Christian is an anachronism: Christianity didn’t begin until a century after the crucifixion; Jesus and all his apostles died Jews.
One really expects a basic level of understanding from broadsheet writers. Or am I being naïve?
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
My own understanding, by the way, is that since Christians (of all kinds, Jew and Gentile) are under the new covenant, we are indeed no longer required to adhere to things like the old dietary laws, apart from charity toward those whose consciences might be troubled by, say, eating meat sacrificed to idols. Isn't the New Testament pretty clear about this?
I don't really have an alternative to offer here, but this has me curious... how is this different from dispensationalism? Or is it?
I don't know enough about dispensationalism to know if it is or not. I've encountered it before, but from my cursory look at Wikipedia, it looks like a fairly recent (1800s) array of doctrines.
Yes, it absolutely was. Which is why I snarkily said (to a different poster) it would be very prescient of Paul to comment on whether or not your pov was dispensationalist.
I'm not asking whether or not the biblical view is dispensationalist (I have my opinion on that). I'm asking whether the view you are advocating above is dispensationalist (whether consciously or unconsciously)-- without opining (although it's probably implied) on whether or not that would be a good or bad thing.
[ 29. March 2015, 21:35: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Oh crap, does that mean I can't eat bacon anymore? (Somehow I don't think this follows...)
Really? Where?
Jesus declared all food clean in the Gospel of Mark, and also there is Peter's vision.
You snipped out the part I was responding to-- which was another poster suggesting that the NT said that the Torah doesn't apply to Jewish Christians anymore. I said that's not the case, at least in any passage I can think of.
We can see examples in the gospels of Jesus breaking Sabbath law-- but note that his defense/explanation is not "the Sabbath law doesn't apply any more" but rather "man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath was made for man". This I think supports my suggestion that the pov of early Jewish Christians was not that the Law was a burden they needed to be released from-- but rather that it was a gift that was part of their identity. Jesus here seems to be saying that explicitly re the Sabbath- it's not an obligation piled on by God, but rather a gift given by God for our benefit.
The Acts passage with Peter tells us no food is unclean. The context though, much like Acts 15, is that Peter is being called to meet with and share the gospel with a gentile. There is every indication that Peter carried on with his own uniquely Jewish dietary practices in his ordinary daily life when not meeting with gentiles (indeed, he gets into a bit of trouble with Paul in that regard).
I'm certainly not saying bacon cheeseburgers are a sin, even for Jewish Christians. I'm just saying the question of "do Jewish Christians need to keep the Law?" doesn't come up in the NT-- presumably because no one was asking it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm certainly not saying bacon cheeseburgers are a sin, even for Jewish Christians. I'm just saying the question of "do Jewish Christians need to keep the Law?" doesn't come up in the NT-- presumably because no one was asking it.
Um, OK. The former statement seems to resolve it, then. My own conscience is certainly clear. (Er, and was already, lest I sound like I was fretting about it.)
quote:
I'm not asking whether or not the biblical view is dispensationalist (I have my opinion on that). I'm asking whether the view you are advocating above is dispensationalist (whether consciously or unconsciously)-- without opining (although it's probably implied) on whether or not that would be a good or bad thing.
Actually I'm not sure the implication is clear here to me. If the theology I understand to be true can be called "dispensationalist," then great, I have a new adjective to use to describe it, though since I always feel like I have to clarify the other ones I use anyway. But it seems like it's associated more with the Protestant or even fundamentalist churches, possibly with a more narrow meaning, than the Catholic end of the spectrum.
What with the array of levels of reality involved (earthly, Heavenly, in time, beyond time, symbolic, archetypal and ectypal), I'd say that the connections between the Church and Israel have a lot more going on with them than anything as (in my view) oversimplified as what I'm reading as "dispensationalism."
[ 30. March 2015, 00:03: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm just saying the question of "do Jewish Christians need to keep the Law?" doesn't come up in the NT-- presumably because no one was asking it.
I honestly think this is resolved pretty clearly in Romans 14, though. It doesn't say that only Gentiles can eat all things (or not) or treat various days alike (or not). And certainly the Church since then doesn't seem to have taught that Christian Jews must follow the Old Testament dietary (and other) regulations.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm just saying the question of "do Jewish Christians need to keep the Law?" doesn't come up in the NT-- presumably because no one was asking it.
I honestly think this is resolved pretty clearly in Romans 14, though. It doesn't say that only Gentiles can eat all things (or not) or treat various days alike (or not). And certainly the Church since then doesn't seem to have taught that Christian Jews must follow the Old Testament dietary (and other) regulations.
Yes. I was arguing with Mudfrog who really was making the opposite argument:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
but the Apostles were quite clear that the only people to not need to follow the Torah are the Gentile converts into Messianic Judiasm
Oh crap, does that mean I can't eat bacon anymore? (Somehow I don't think this follows...)
Really? Where? I don't see that anywhere in Acts 15. The letter written by the Jerusalem council is specifically addressed to Gentile converts and does indeed give them the "get out of Torah free card" but I don't see anywhere in the chapter where it addresses Jewish Christians one way or the other.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I have long thought that the Apostles made a mistake (well-intended, to be sure, but a mistake) when they decided that Gentile Christians were not bound to follow the 613 commandments ...
Acts 15 was essentially a compromise between Paul, who had been converting pagans to God through Christ, and the "circumcision party" led by James the Righteous, "The Lord's brother" however you interpret that, who was dealing mostly with Jewish converts, and who saw Christianity as a messianic group within Judaism. There had long been "Godfearers" associated with the synagogues, who didn't take on the yoke of the Law, but lived according to the rules explained in Acts 15:19-20.
The idea that, eventually, the pagans would come to know the God os Israel, that "all peoples, nations and languages should serve him (Dan 7:14) had a long pedigree in Israel. So the decision was made not to burden newcomers to Christ with the Law, but in the hope that it would come later. "For from early generations has had in every city those who preach him." (Acts 15:21.)
But Paul may not have been so different. NT Wright in his book "What St Paul Really Said" makes the point that in Galations, when Paul says that Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness, he is emphasising that faith comes before circumcision, and before the Law which didn't come for many generations after. So the atarting point for salvation is faith. Circumcision and the Law can come later. With the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, the messianic sect was more or less wiped out, and it was Paul's pagan converts who inherited the fast growing world of Christianity.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I have long thought that the Apostles made a mistake (well-intended, to be sure, but a mistake) when they decided that Gentile Christians were not bound to follow the 613 commandments ...
If it is what everyone should do, then it is not too late, but I don't agree. For one thing, doesn't it mean they were basically blaspheming by saying that their approach was directed by the Holy Spirit?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Yes, I was confused... ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
