Here I advanced three views of three different authors and put forth very few words of my own. This fits perfectly with the purposes enumerated below the blog title: personal, reflective, thinking, provisional, prone to quote and to re-post. Really, this blog is just a place where I keep some of my thoughts ordered and organized. But if I contradict myself, then, well, I contradict myself.
I can't wait to wade into any number of other swampy morasses, such as baptismal regeneration. Yes. No. Maybe. But I will repeat something I actually did say definitively: whatever an Anglican may be, no Anglican may be a supersessionist or adherent of replacement theology. What does your church say? Is what they say really coherent or is it muddled and duplicitous?
Wherefore they are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises.
I think others might agree (but I mean to tar no one with my own brush).
...does the first-century Jews' rejection of Jesus imply that God thereupon must have abandoned his earlier Covenants with them?
Such an outcome is simply not a logical consequence of the Old Testament covenants. The Jewish Messiah was a promise foretold by the prophets, but the Messiah as such formed no part of any covenant. And although God keeps His promises, he also does not break any of His covenants.
God's covenants with Noah, Abraham and Moses therefore still have to hold, as between God and the descendants of Abraham who have not accepted Christianity, but who adhere to the tenets of the Jewish faith. For there to be a "supersession" of those covenants implies a breach of those covenants -- by God himself, which is an impossibility. "For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom. 11:29).