Talk:Supersessionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Calvinism Portal Supersessionism falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Discussion

The page says "This view is unanimous, and other leaders in the Catholic Church have since issued other official proclamations which reject this view (...)"

This sounds contradictory, is there perhaps a negation missing in the first part of this sentence?Andre Engels

This article bothers me. It defines supersessionism in a way that supersessionists can't agree with. That can't be good. Supersessionism concerns the identity of the Church, not the chosenness of the Jews. As defined, the article not only misses what is meant by supersessionism, it also misses what the Church has believed concerning the Jews. I'll poke around for some statements of more or less "official" standing in various traditions, to show what I mean. I'll work on it when I have a little time. Mkmcconn 03:37, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed redefintion

I want to define supersessionism more in line with the following:

Supersessionism is the traditional Christian belief that Christianity is the fulfillment of Biblical Judaism, and therefore that Jews who deny that Jesus Christ is the Jewish Messiah fall short of their calling as God's Chosen people.

Thus, according to supersessionism, the Jews are supposedly either, no longer considered to be God's Chosen people or, their proper calling is frustrated pending their acceptance of Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah.

The reason this is better, is that it offers more than one idea of supersessionism. It allows that there might be some who believe that the Jews are rejected (I assume that there must be some who formally teach this, although I am less familiar with this belief, and do not know if it is currently, formally held by anyone). However, Protestant supersessionists (at least the Reformed variety, with which I am familiar) do not believe that the "chosenness" of the Jews is revokable for any reason. In fact, the "chosenness" of the gentile believers in the messiah is an engrafting into the promises made to Israel. If the Jews can be rejected, then the chosenness of the Church is also reversible, since its basis is in the former. The election of the Christian Church is not reversible, and therefore neither is its basis, in the election of Israel.

Please discuss. Mkmcconn 09:52, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. I was uncomfortable with this article when I encountered it too. However I think we need views from people from a variety of traditions (particularly, I'd suggest, Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, and dispensationalist) - I am just another liberal Protestant, though of a different (more Arminian) traditon. But maybe the way to get those views is to put up your preferred definition and see who bites. Or put a message on the talk page of someone who has worked on the article before? seglea 16:42, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I had thought that others would weigh in here with an opinion on this proposal, but since there are no objections, I'll insert the revision and see what happens.

....................................................................... In an article by author Phillip Yancy who was invited to attend a round table discussion with Jewish Islamic and Christian men he concluded that Islam believes it has superseded Christianity in the way that Christianity may have superceded Judaism.

Whoever wrote the third paragraph in this article should really really read Romans 11 (the whole chapter). You can go on about translation problems etc. but this is not a difficult peace of scripture to understand. There will only be so many gentiles that will be saved. Read it for yourself it's really easy to understand and any church who cant get with scripture this easy shouldn't be trusted with translation of other scripture!

.......................................................................

I have real problems with this entry. It confuses supersessionism with dispensationalism. In dispensationalism, it is taught that in this dispensation, ethnic Jews do not have any special role in the plan of God, and must accept Jesus for redeption just like any gentile. It does however teach that in age(s) to come (the number of which depends on the flavor of dispensationalism), the ethnic Jews will once again have a role to play in God's plan in literal fulfilment of the Jewish prophets like Isaiah.

Supsersessionism, on the other hand, teaches that the role of the Jewish people has been completely and permanently replaced by that of the Church (the collected belevers in Jesus), and any prophecy referencing the future promises to "Israel" are to be interpreted symbolically as referring to that Church.

--RebbePete 02:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)RebbePete

I think that your problems are minor. The article doesn't confuse dispensationalism with supersessionism: instead it contrasts them. However, it also distinguishes between what dispensationalism means by the "rejection of supersessionism", and what others would mean by the same language. Dispensationalists do not deny that Jesus is the only way of salvation, and that Jesus supersedes Judaism that does not know Jesus. Dispensationalists, in fact, are the popularizers of the terminology, "completed Jew" - a term that anyone outside of dispensationalism would interpret as supersessionist. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Category:Calvinism

I removed this category because the page doesn't really explain in any way how the concept is unique to Calvinism or particularly important to Calvinism, as opposed to other families of Christianity. If someone can edit the page to explain that, then I have no problem with us returning it to that category. KHM03 14:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supersessionism according to covenant theology

I believe that the article might be making an error in what it identifies as having been superseded. Here is a citation of Catholic sister, Mary C. Boys. She defines supersessionism in the following terms.

1. revelation in J-esus supersedes the revelation to Israel;
2. the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament;
3. the church replaces the Jews as God's people;
4. Judaism is obsolete, its covenant abrogated;
5. postexilic Judaism was legalistic;
6. the Jews did not heed the warning of the prophets;
7. the Jews did not understand the prophecies about J-esus;
8. the Jews were "Christ killers" http://www.chayas.com/antijew.htm

Are all of these supersessionism? To suggest that calling the Jews "Christ killers" is supersessionism, especially, is pretty darn offensive to supersessionists! I believe that her real claim is that, the New Testament account is intrinsically anti-semitic.

I would say that only 1 is definitive, and everything else is an implication, amplification or consequence. And the problem is that this article doesn't even include that definitive element in the definition or in the discussion. Consequently, controversy knocks the issue almost immediately off track. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

If she really said that last point, then I wonder where Sister Mary gets her credo; it's been quite some time since the Catholic Church officially repudiated the notorious 'Christ-killer' label. Eaglizard 15:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Supersessionism

The Muslims assert that Mohammed was not merely a universal prophet, but the last one, and that his message superceded all others.

The Muslim message on this issue is somewhat complicated, even contradictory, and often involves not merely the supersesssion of previousn revelations, but that these were illegitimate in the first place, that both the Torah and the New Testament ("Enjil") are corrupted, and that the events attributed to the Hebrews or the Jews happened to the Arabs and the Muslims.

Can anyone discuss this?

The idea is that, the other scriptures were not meant to be preserved in purity. This is why they suffered corruption. But when the perfect came, the corruptible is superseded. You are right, that this article was begun with special reference to the issue in mind of Jewish/Christian relations, but there are other kinds of supersessionism that belong under this topic. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I tagged this as NPOV because of this edit which needs moderating/qualification. --Flex 01:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marcion has nothing to do with Supersessionism

I think the following phrase is a big misunderestanding of the teaching of Marcion

"The first view, a theory that the promises made to the Jews are invalid and that the Christian Church is chosen instead, was a theory promoted by Marcion of Sinope for example, who rejected the Hebrew Bible."

Malcion stated that there are two gods, the demiurge, the creator of this world who is the God of the ancient testament, and the good God who is remote and distant. He argued that the two gods can only be different as one is jealous, full of wrath while the second is of a God of love and compassion. Marcion is greatly influenced by gnostic dualistic views. He promotes a religion and a God that are totally unrelated to the ones of the Old Testament. The jews have their religion, and the christian a totaly different one. Therefore, the name of Marcion should not be involved in an article discussing the covenant and how the jews fit in the plans of the christian God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johntingtong (talk • contribs).

[edit] Two types

Whose view does the first type of supersessionism describe? Are these edits correct? --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distinctiveness of Israel and the Church into Future History

At the end of Revelation , after the Final Judgement, the New Jerusalem is described as such:

Rev 21:12 It has a massive, high wall with twelve gates, with twelve angels at the gates, and the names of the twelve tribes of the nation of Israel are written on the gates....The wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

This supports the view that the Jews still remain thier national identity even into eternity. This emphasis on Jews become Christians is misplaced. The Jews will come to recognize the Messiah when he shows for them.. if that makes them "christians" then so be it... nothing in the Bible suggests thier loss of identity or distinction and as Revelation shows. even in the world to come they are distinct.

Someone with some eloquence might try to incorporate that view into whatever this article is trying to say, I can not. VP1974 06:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)