tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post5826541703671889387..comments2024-03-19T00:26:30.753-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: Bono, Love, and Supersessionism - Le DonneAnthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-73562445563457773092013-07-09T04:26:41.241-07:002013-07-09T04:26:41.241-07:00I normally don't have a problem with replying ...I normally don't have a problem with replying to anonymous comments on this blog. But in the case of inter-religious dialogue, I must insist on equal footing re: self-disclosure. <br /><br />I just made up that rule.<br /><br />-anthony Anthony Le Donnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-29495771247530872942013-07-08T21:25:24.471-07:002013-07-08T21:25:24.471-07:00Thanks Anthony, that does look like an interesting...Thanks Anthony, that does look like an interesting book.<br /><br />I should clarify that I don't apply the supersessionist label to myself but I can see why a person who is Jewish would apply it to me. If they want to label me supersessionist while I hold to my view (outlined roughly with my six points) then so be it.<br /><br />My concern is primarily practical, not historical. As I see it the general Christian population have swallowed one or both of the following misconceptions: a) Jewish people do not need the gospel (the worst); or b) Jewish people are not the primary, intended recipients of the gospel (almost as bad).<br /><br />Both directly contradict the soteriology of the NT (particularly Romans 11 as you have pointed out). Both cause Gentile Christians to be apathetic towards evangelism to Jewish people.<br /><br />I would like to know how those misconceptions came about. Like every issue regarding modern Jewish and Christian relations, I'm sure a major factor will be the events including and surrounding the Shoah.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-53982695012756999832013-07-07T22:40:20.748-07:002013-07-07T22:40:20.748-07:00Dear Anonymous,
Re: point four, I would recommend...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />Re: point four, I would recommend Joel Lohr's chapter in this book:<br />http://www.amazon.com/Soundings-Religion-Jesus-Perspectives-Scholarship/dp/0800698010/<br /><br />-anthony<br /><br />Anthony Le Donnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-67119149145139371942013-07-07T21:37:54.939-07:002013-07-07T21:37:54.939-07:00I'm happy with the 'supersessionist' l...I'm happy with the 'supersessionist' label, as long as I can still believe the following:<br />1. Jesus is Jewish<br />2. Jesus is the Jewish messiah<br />3. Jesus' gospel is primarily the final redemptive plan for Israel (ethnic, not national)<br />4. Jewish people are the primary target/intended recipients of the gospel<br />5. Gentiles are the secondary target/intended recipients of the gospel. They are graciously given the 'crumbs' of the gospel (Matthew 15/Mark 7)<br />6. Jews and Gentiles are at peace but separate in the body. "He is our peace". (c.f. Ephesians 2:11-22)<br /><br />If my 'supersessionist' Jesus does not fit into the paradigms of modern day Judaism then so be it. I don't think Jesus would care (again, Matthew 15 shows how much Jesus cared about the traditions of the elders).<br /><br />I think the problem is that most supersessionists either accept none of the above points or only accept 1. and 2.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-6201124055825210872013-07-03T22:47:10.047-07:002013-07-03T22:47:10.047-07:00Anthony, I’d be happy to discuss supersessionism, ...Anthony, I’d be happy to discuss supersessionism, but I wonder if that’s at the heart of the problem you sense (me too) with Bono’s statement. Isn’t it possible to believe in supersessionism AND the continuity of God’s character from Old to New Testament? In fact, isn’t this the predominant (or at least a dominant) Christian position? The essence of supersessionism as you’ve described it (correctly, in my understanding) is that the new covenant replaces the old, so that the Church replaces the Jewish people as the focus of God’s plan for humanity. This replacement may raise difficult questions (see, e.g., Romans 11:1): perhaps God has changed God’s mind. But a change of mind, or of heart, does not necessarily mean that God changed. <br /><br />For me, the problem with Bono’s statement is the same problem I see in the writing of people like Peter Enns. Please understand, I admire Enns and read his blog regularly. Enns wants to find a way to deal with problematic Biblical provisions like the war instructions God gives to the children of Israel in Deuteronomy 20:16: “for the towns of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive.” <a href="%E2%80%9D" rel="nofollow">My reading of Enns is that he contrasts</a> the God that could give these kinds of orders with God’s character: merciful, loving, and so forth. It’s an interesting way to go, to assume that one’s general assessment of what God would and would not do trumps what the Bible said God actually did. But while the matter is complicated and there are arguments to be made against Enns here, I think he’s basically on the right track.<br /><br />Here’s where my problem comes in. From what I’ve seen, Enns’ problem texts come exclusively from the Old Testament. And the texts Enns draws upon to support his description of God’s true character? They seem to come mostly from the New Testament. I don’t for a minute think that either Enns or Bono are anti-Jewish, but when the problem they address is exclusively Old Testament and the solution is predominantly New Testament, the process does not seem to me to be good for the Jews.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.com