Talk:Supersessionism/Archive 1

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 06:51, 1 August 2002  (UTC)

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)

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.  &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

--- All of the points above were historically part of the doctrine of the Catholic church and early protestantism, though it may have been called by other names and not superssesionalism, and though many Christians may not believe it any longer. They were undoubtedly the basis of anti-Semitism or the excuse for it. They are apparently part of the beliefs of people like Hutton and Mel Gibson. They are certainly explicit in the writings of Eusebius of Pamphilius and of other fathers of the Church. The current doctrine(s) of the various churches are sometimes obscure and contradictory. The fact is that the Vatican lobbied energetically to ensure the internationalization of Jeursalem, whatever excuses they may have given for it. They did not raise this concern before the possibility of Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem was a concern, though Muslims had ruled the city for well over a thousand years, excluding the crusades. This is consistent with the doctrine of Eusebius. It would be good however, to begin the article (if possible) with a history of the usage of the word supersessionism (or supersessionalism). Mewnews 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)]]

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)

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

This article reads like anti-Christian bias, especially the claims that recent churches have turned away from supercessionism. Believe what you want, but don't misstate the beliefs of others.68.211.77.10 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dispensationalism has been all the rage for a while among Protestant denominations (witness Left Behind). The (re-)foundation of Israel brought about a whole new theory of millenialism vis a vis the Second coming. I half imagine George Bush invaded Bagdad because of what Revelations says about the fall of Babylon. If you've found weasel words by all means remove them. -- Kendrick7talk 00:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntingtong (talk • contribs)

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

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)


 * First, the WP is not for debates. This article describes what advocates of supersessionism (and to a lesser extent, what its critics) say, not whether or not they are right ("verifiability, not truth" --WP:V). Second, were you to phrase this in the form of a criticism, you would need reliable sources (quotations from the Bible don't qualify) for this interpretation, lest it be deleted as original research. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding what the page is about. It's not clear (to me). VP1974 12:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you VP1974. And Flex is incorrect about the Bible being inadmissable as a source. It is frequently quoted at Wiki, sometimes it is a primary source, sometimes secondary. The Bible actually interacts with other ancient literature, which can also be quoted.
 * What would be original research is to provide interpretation of non-trivial Bible passages, without citing a source. What would be POV is to provide an interpretation of the Bible that is held by, say Catholicism, but not by Protestants. If one POV is quoted, others can (and should) be quoted also, and handled in such a manner as the reader decides between them, without our leading.
 * Ultimately, there is no difficulty. Every page of the Bible has heaps of commentary. If you know a passage is relevant, find a commentator who says how it is relevant and cite them here at Wiki. That provides documentation that enhances Wiki. The commentator is likely to be more eloquent than you or I. It will not be original research because it's sourced, and if it is POV (i.e. there are other views), well people can go and find those views and write them up, at least you've done half the work, and given the other view-point an incentive to find a source.
 * Perhaps what Flex is more concerned about is to warn you off quoting the Bible as if it is authoritative in some way. At Wiki the Bible is only authoritative regarding its own opinion, like any other source. It has no priveleged position above other sources (mind you, they have no priveleged position above it), so find those commentators and quote their interpretations freely. The books of the Bible are the most quoted body of literature in the Oxford English Dictionary, the Bible is still the best selling book of all time. Since supercessionism is supposed to be derived from the Bible, it would be very odd indeed if it didn't feature in this article, which is pretty much about whether one half of the Christian Bible is the "revised edition" of the first or not.
 * Sorry if I'm being too tough on you Flex, but I'm not aware of a Wiki policy against the Qur'an, Guru Granth Sahib, Baghavad Gita or Tanakh, and presume the same goes for the New Testament. It's just that the POV that these come from God or have some kind of special authority must be reported from the NPOV, as indeed must POVs that they do not. Alastair Haines 15:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

untitled section moved from top of page
This page has a number of faults it seems, some of which may be intrinsic to the materials.

1. It is not clear that either various Protestant or Catholic churches entirely reject "hard supersessionism" (it is also called "supersessionalism" by the way)because stands in different places in modern times contradict each other.

2. From the point of view of Jewish theology, it seems to me that none of the discussion of who gets "saved" is at all relevant. The covenant of God with Abraham and with the Jews did not concern eternal spiritual salvation of individuals, but rather "worldly" and actual prosperity of the Jewish people and their inheritance of the land of Israel (with various geographic boundaries). In early Jewish theology there was no heaven or hell or afterlife, and even today the concepts of the "next world" are blurred.

Eusebius of Pamphilia was very explicit that the physical destruction of the temple and Jerusalem signalled the end of the old covenant, and early Christians believed in the "curse of Eusebius," which forbade the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem. This was supposedly manifest in terrible prodigies when the attempt was made in the time of Julian, as recounted by Gibbon and others.

It is this sense of supersessionalism or replacement theology that is relevant to the debate about Christian Zionism. I would call this Supersessionism in the practical sense or Practical Supersessionism.

3. The question of whether or not different denominations of Christians or pagans might be saved or not seems to me to be irrelevant to supersessionalism, which has to be about who inherits the covenant, Jews or Christians or both, not what happens to those who do not, and not whether other denominations "count" as Christians. 4. RE: "Supersessionism concerns the identity of the Church, not the chosenness of the Jews." Actually it must concern both. The doctrines of Eusebius and others were quite clear in their denial or "termination" of the covenant with the Jews, and the Church's identity as inheritor of that covenant can only be asserted by discrediting the choseness Jews, as well as certain passages of the New Testament, which warrant that Jesus will keep the law, and that salvation is only of the Jews.

5. RE "It defines supersessionism in a way that supersessionists can't agree with." It is evident that there are numerous varieties of supersessionism/supersessionalism/replacement theology and that you cannot present a single definition (or even two) that fits them all. You can explain what you mean by supersessionalism. That would not be a comprehensive definition, because someone like Stephen Sizer means something else it seems, and the the Missouri Synod or the Catholic Church might mean something else again, so you need to explain each one, though sometimes what they mean is not clear. It is not wise to give one person's or one denomination's view as "dogma" since this is an encyclopedia, not a church document.

6. Far and away the most comic and frustrating aspects of these discussions relate to the way these terms are used in polemical discussions. On the one hand, it is asserted that dispensationalists=Christian Zionists, and then asserted and dispensationalists believe in supersessionalism. But others (pro and anti) argue that dispensationalists are against supersessionalism/replacement theology. It depends what point they want to prove. Great care should be taken in making assertions of the type "XXs believe in Yism" and someone who really understands the theology from an eclectic nondenominational POV should try to clarify the terms in a way that makes sense. Obviously they have been misused or misunderstood. Mewnews 13:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)]]

Missing elements in the article

 * Who first used the word "supersession" (or inflected forms)
 * Is its definition universally accepted, or are there variants?
 * Was all this done in English?
 * When?
 * Is supersessionism the official doctrine of one or more denominations?
 * Is it an unofficial belief within one or more denominations?
 * Was it addressed in the early church debates?
 * Was it addressed during the Reformation?
 * Has it ever been declared heretical or outlawed?
 * Who declared it heretical, on what grounds, were there other groups who accepted it?
 * What do para-Christian groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and Mormons believe about it?
 * Is it a Jewish view of Christian belief?
 * Is it the only documented Jewish view of this aspect of Christian belief?
 * Is it the consequence of other views (i.e. derived from them) or are there views derived from it?
 * Is it simply a term for an aspect of dispensationalism or facet of some other theological framework?
 * What do Theological Dictionaries say about it?
 * Are any passages of scripture used to support it? (I know one source that claims one)
 * Are any used to deny it? (I can think of dozens without trying, so sources will have done this)

Note: there are a lot of great passages quoted, but without sourced explanation of relevance. Those are just a few questions I have. I'll check back over the article to see if I missed the answers. Alastair Haines 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess this article is now on my "to do" list. Please, anyone, answer any of the questions above and add questions of your own. Cheers Alastair Haines 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One comment, correct me if I'm wrong, but at the moment the article seems to me to describe a Jewish analysis of a handfull of Roman Catholic doctrines. That's great stuff, it's a keeper, but I'm not sure how it adaquately covers what is purported to be the "Christian" view — Orthodox, Methodists, Quakers, Baptists, Coptic, Marionite, Mennonite, ... Alastair Haines 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Replacement theology

 * Most people associate Replacement Theology with white supremacy and the belief that the White race has replace the Jew's as God's chosen people. Can you explain the definitions of these words a little better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Current research report
For anyone who is interested in this article, or concerned about it. I'm trawling the internet for information atm. It appears that the term supercessionism was coined by those outside confessional orthodox Christianity, as a label for one aspect of New Testament teaching they find objectionable. As it appears to be a twentieth century American term, coined by critics of Christianity, that would explain why I haven't encountered it while studying theology in Australia.

The New Testament does indeed teach something like what the critics label as supercessionism, which is why related ideas are found throughout orthodox confessional Christianity. This would also explain positive references to supercessionism by some American Christians.

The issue seems vexed to me, probably because supercessionism is defined by critics of the New Testament, rather than by the New Testament itself. As such, although there is much in common, there are important differences, which mean those who accept the NT as normative will not necessarily feel comfortable with definitions of supercessionism provided by its critics. So there are American Christians who also write unfavourably regarding supercessionism.

Conclusion: This article is an important one, especially if understood and approached properly. The label supercession is shorthand for a particular important criticism of NT teaching, hence Christianity. A fair approach would seem to be to first define that criticism in terms the critics would accept cover their criticisms accurately. Various Christian responses (since there are a few) would then be needed to achieve NPOV. Either within the Christian response section, or in a separate section, the history of the idea of supercessionism under other names should probably also be treated.

This is quite a bit of work. Until it is done, however, the article will remain wide-open to legitimate criticism of bias.

Anyway, that's my provisional opinion, given only limited research so far. Cheers everyone. Alastair Haines 09:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

External link
I'm still working away, decided to check up on external links already at this page. The first one, False gospel is pretty poor. I don't think it counts as reliable by Wiki standards. I hate removing things, even bad things, because it's all part of evidence, and even the worst text is never all wrong. Anyway, I'm just noting at least one external link is not a peer reviewed source, and seems to reflect a rather specific group or individual preacher. Nevertheless, I'm leaving it in place until I find something better to offer. Alastair Haines 11:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Starting in on serious editing
OK friends, I've found sufficient reliable sources to make sense of this issue (in my opinion). I'm going to start writing these into the article, using as much of the existing material as possible.

Please jump in and edit over the top of me, if I don't like your edit I'll do the same back to you, or start a conversation here.

However, please note that I will be putting things directly onto the page for a while, it will be work in progress, not a final form (Wiki never really is in final form).

I hope no-one is going to feel insulted if I write the article for people who are not familiar with either Christianity or Judaism. It minimizes assumptions about terminology, which probably caused a large part of the confusion I felt reading the article as it stood before. Cheers. Alastair Haines 08:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello User:Flex
I'm pretty fussy about what I write when I am the only editor, but relax as soon as others are involved. I prefer two shorter sentences to a compound sentence (usually), others prefer it the other way. Whatever. It's really great to have someone drop in and care enough to tweak. I particularly appreciate the careful way that content was not changed, improvement of style, precision, clarity are your aims. Thank you.

One quibble though, I think I had "earliest commentators", you prefer "expositors". I actually prefer your word, in many ways, though the Wiki context might be more comfortable with the more vague and neutral term I used. Anyway, I won't fuss, there's more I want to write up, that's my priority atm. I guess if I'm lucky you'll copy-edit that for us as well, hint, hint. Alastair Haines 13:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll look in from time to time. I'm glad to see someone seeking to edit this according to reliable sources. As for "commentators", I only changed it because they weren't necessarily writing commentary proper. More likely, they were writing sermons or open letters or what have you. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 22:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Time for a break
The dispensational section looks fair to me. From the little I've read so far, this seems a fair representation of this POV. When I come back, I'll try to find sources and copy-edit the section somewhat.

The Covenant Theology section needs expansion.

Perhaps "liberal" views should sit between Theological and Denominational. Perhaps they should be dropped, they are covered in broad terms in the Contemporary debate section, and placed in context there.

Perhaps there's no real need to pursue Eastern Orthodox views, which would probably be similar to Roman Catholic. Perhaps there's no real need to pursue Pentacostal/Charismatic views, which would probably be dispensational.

In that case, perhaps all we need are three detailed presentations — Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, Roman Catholic. RC is going to stand out as special in this topic because they have a very special definitions: 1. of church -- i.e. RC is only true church; and 2. of doctrine -- infalibility of popes ex cathedra, councils etc. In theory, past statements cannot be wrong or modified. The other two views are necessary in the article because they specialize in Covenants.

Cheers, Alastair Haines 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At long last I'm almost done. Just Dispensationalism sources and copy-edit to go. I'll submit a request for review from the WP Calvinism people cause I know them best (in fact, I'm a member). Then can come the possibly rocky road of asking WP Judaism and Catholicism to drop by for a peek. Should be a walk in the park! ;) Alastair Haines 12:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Woohoo! Dispensationalism now reads OK to me, I think it fairly represents what I see in Dispensational sources, without sounding like it's the only valid approach. It's a carefully reasoned view, with lots of great features. Everything in the section is now verifiable (I think), but it would take work to find the best sources to do the actual verification. Perhaps a Dispensationalist will do this for us. I can't imagine reliable contrary sources being thrown up anyway. Anyway, read, edit, comment away friends. I'll only be tweaking from here. Alastair Haines 09:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving two sub-sections
I've had excellent feedback from an expert on the subject. As a result I'm archiving two sections to this page. These two sections were important for me in understanding why people were saying different things about supersessionism, however, I can see that for people more familiar with the topic they are somewhat peripheral to the main issues.