I. INTRODUCTION 

This study should prove quite intellectually challenging to most who read it. Do not let that deter you from persevering through, so you may understand what follows, as this is a critically important subject for anyone holding office. As usual, I have attempted to explicate in a way that makes the study bite-sizeable and digestible to aid your comprehension. Stay with me. 

II. CHALLENGES FACING SUPERSESSIONISM 

If the conditional promise (cf. Genesis 12:3) of the Abrahamic Covenant (cf. Genesis 15:18) remains intact, then God’s blessing on individuals and nations is in part predicated on how they treat Israel as a nation. That being the case, a person’s theology for not supporting or blessing national Israel need be airtight. The biblical position and exegetical support for Supersessionism must be painstakingly explicit, universally convincing, and beyond a shadow of a doubt given the stated deleterious results that are promised in Genesis 12:3! The difference in this case between God either blessing or cursing demands one’s best exegetical abilities. Again, 

To erroneously adhere to Replacement Theology could jeopardize an individual’s, a group’s, or a nation’s future. 

Supersessionists have a tall order to fill if they embrace and confidently promote “God is finished with national Israel” because on them is the scriptural burden of proof. At a minimum, they must convincingly argue from God’s Word the following: 

A. THE PROMISES GOD HAS MADE TO ISRAEL ARE NO LONGER APPLICABLE TO ISRAEL 

Does Scripture clearly enunciate that the obvious promises God made to Israel no longer inure to Israel but instead to His Church? How can God make numerous unconditional promises to Israel as a nation in the Old and New Testament (both in Genesis 12 and Romans 11) and then not fulfill them? Where does God in His Word specifically negate the promises He made in those passages? 

B. THE CHURCH IS THE NEW ISRAEL 

Replacement Theologists must demonstrate that Scripture clearly teaches that the Church supersedes and eclipses Israel. Is the Church specifically referred to as the replacement of national Israel? Or is the thesis of Replacement Theology based on one or two passages taken out of context as we will examine later in this study? 

C. THE CHURCH INHERITS ISRAEL’S COVENANTS AND BLESSINGS 

Does Scripture clearly teach that in blessing His Church, God will no longer bless ethnic Israel as a nation? The Supersessionists have the responsibility to convincingly prove from biblical passages that Israel as a nation no longer has a place in God’s future. Again, on them is the burden of proof. 

They must provide sound exegetical support for each of these three propositions in order to make their point. Anything less is to play with fire per Genesis 12. 

III. CLARIFYING SUPERSESSIONISM 

Before testing more closely each of the three premises questioned previously in association with specific pivotal biblical texts, several further insights need first be mentioned to gain a broader understanding of this still-prevalent theological viewpoint. These insights are as follows: 

A. THEY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SPIRITUAL ISRAEL AND NATIONAL ISRAEL 

In order to construct and defend their position, Supersessionists will often suggest that what the respective Bible writers had in mind when mentioning Israel (relative to passages that are problematic to their position) is this: “Israel” is a reference to Jews who came to Christ, versus the ethnic nation of Israel. That convenient distinction will become increasingly evident as this study progresses. 

B. THEY UNABASHEDLY AND MUNIFICENTLY CHANGE THEIR HERMENEUTICAL APPROACH TO INTERPRETATION 

This cavalier—what amounts to a hopscotch—approach to interpreting the biblical text, is what really bothers me! When confronted with straightforward, plain passages that promise Israel’s national return, they quickly suggest the Scriptures have a non-literal meaning. This misrepresenting is somewhat similar to a referee changing the way he calls the game in the final two minutes. If Replacement Theologians applied this same privilege with the numerous passages dealing with their redemption, they would have no assurance of their salvation. 

C. THEY ARE SOMETIMES MOTIVATED BY ANTI-SEMITISM 

To do justice to the topic, I need mention that anti-Semitism is sometimes the real driving force behind those who hold to a God-has-rejected-the-Jews viewpoint. 

Jewish racism amongst those who name the name of Christ is nothing new—as despicable, ungodly, and un-Christlike as it is. 

Whereas the former two caveats can be argued with objectivity, this last point is a matter of one’s heart, and Scripture warns us not to judge another’s heart. What is discernible, however, is an individual’s intractable deafness to cogent reasoning from multiple prevalent biblical texts and an underlying bitterness toward a group of people; sometimes such stubbornness is due to anti-Semitism. This possibility should not be overlooked when dealing with those who adamantly and unlovingly profess, “God is done with the Jews!” 

IV. CONDENSING SUPERSESSIONISM 

Lastly by way of introduction, what follows is not a study on Eschatology per se nor a critique of Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, or Amillennialism, even though, granted, a strong correlation exists among these camps. One either holds to non-Supersessionism or Supersessionism. To undertake a broadened discussion correlation or not to these eschatological viewpoints would overwhelm the title, the focus, and the intent of this study. Suffice it to state the following: 

V. COUNTERACTANTS TO SUPERSESSIONISM 

American Evangelicalism in terms of its best-known national seminaries, radio preachers, parachurch ministries, and popular authors have unreservedly promoted a pro-Israel theology for many decades. The Dispensational seminaries, such as Dallas, Western, Denver, and Moody; the national radio and TV preachers, such as the late DeHaan, Falwell, McGee, Wiersbe, Rogers, and Stanley; Swindoll, Jeremiah and MacArthur; the parachurch ministries such as CRU (formerly Campus Crusade), Navigators, Youth For Christ, and Capitol Ministries; the writing ministries of Hal Lindsey, in The Late Great Planet Earth, and Tim LaHaye in his “left behind” series, have all combined to inauspiciously affect the Supersessionists’ viewpoint in our day, “to the point of [its] vanishing altogether” (Blaising, “The Future of Israel as a Theological Question,” JETS 44 [2001]).¹ 

Nevertheless, regardless of marketplace momentum in one direction or another, the policymaker should root his convictions for or against Replacement Theology based on his personal exegesis of the Word of God. This study is an attempt to aid that decision. 

VI. COMPREHENDING SUPERCESSIONISM’S HERMENEUTICS 

More about prior point III.B is in order. Supersessionists rely on several principles of interpretation in order to arrive at their conclusions. They are worth further mention so as to broaden understanding, background, and insight into their way of thinking when they examine the pivotal passages that constitute the debate. A brief explanation of each of their differing principles are as follows. 

A. THE NT HAS AN INTERPRETIVE PRIORITY OVER THE OT 

Most conservative expositors believe that Scripture is progressive in its revelation, i.e., what is mentioned skeletally for example in Genesis is analogous to, but in full-color, greater detail in the New Testament (NT). But Supersessionists believe that rather than providing additional and greater insight, the NT is not only an interpreter of the meaning of Old Testament (OT) texts, but it can reinterpret them! More specifically in this regard, physical promises made to Israel by OT prophets, they believe, are often reinterpreted by NT writers to have a spiritual fulfillment in the Church. Accordingly, actual OT predictions pertaining to Israel’s future physical restoration are, I believe, wrongly discounted. 

In suggesting that God in this way is now offering something greater—something that transcends the authorial intent of the OT writer—is to rewrite and/or reinterpret what the OT author meant to the audience he communicated to at that time. But here’s the major problem with that: 

Practicing this hermeneutic brings into question the integrity, infallibility, and immutability of Scripture as a whole. 

Bottom line—they are proffering that the biblical author really didn’t mean what he said at the time he said it! This interpretation presents a real problem and is an affront to the basics of the biblical doctrine of Bibliology—that the Bible is infallible and inerrant and plenarily inspired, which is a watershed issue viewing the Bible and its authority in an overall sense. 

B. OT TEXTS HAVE SPIRITUAL, VERSUS LITERAL FULFILLMENTS 

In addition to Genesis 12 and Romans 11, a forthright reading of Bible texts such as Amos 9:11–15, Zechariah 14:16, and Joel 3:17–18 indicates that God has a plan to restore national Israel. Israel will once again someday possess the land! And that prophecy has already begun to be fulfilled! The intended meaning of these texts is difficult to miss. Again, the Supersessionists argue that God fulfilled these promises in “non-literal ways” (Hoekema, Amillennialism, p. 172), but the problem with this position is that other OT prophesies already fulfilled are fulfilled both physically and literally!² 

C. NATIONAL ISRAEL IS A TYPE OF THE NT CHURCH 

Both Supersessionists and non-Super-sessionists believe in OT types (or typologies). A type in Scripture is a person or thing in the Old Testament that foreshadows a person or thing in the New Testament; a type is a prefigurement. For instance OT animal sacrifices that atoned for the sins of Israelites foreshadow Christ’s ultimate sacrifice on the Cross for the sins of mankind. The latter example is termed a superior antitype. In this way Supersessionists reason that Israel is a type, and the Church is the superior antitype. 

However, one cannot read into the Bible the existence of a type when the Bible does not specifically identify something as a type; to do so is to travel down the slippery slope of subjective interpretation of Scripture—reading types into everything imaginable. This is a form of eisegesis which is defined by The Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas.” In the hermeneutical school of typological interpretation, the interpreter becomes the power and force of a passage, versus the way it’s supposed to be—the definition is provided by the passage itself. Such is to superimpose a meaning that was unintended by the author(s). No biblical evidence is found anywhere in the Bible to indicate that Israel was intended by God in the OT to be a type relative to the Church. To do so is to read into the text something that is not there in order to support one’s predeterminations. This is eisegesis, not exegesis. 

These are three differing-from-the-norm interpretive principles that Supersessionists regularly employ to support their viewpoint that “God is finished with Israel today.” 

VII. CONTESTED PASSAGES OF SUPERSESSIONISM 

What follows are their most common arguments from Scripture that are used to justify their belief that God is finished with Israel and, among other matters, perhaps imply that Israel is not worthy of America’s special care. 

A. NATIONAL ISRAEL’S SUPOSSED PERMANENT REJECTION: MATTHEW 21:43 

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.” 

This passage, wherein Jesus is addressing the Jewish leaders of His day, is widely used to support this position. Replacement Theology reasons that Israel permanently forfeited its blessing because of her rejection of Jesus. States Gerstner “They have been tried and found wanting” (quoted by Ironside, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, p. 190–91). 

Notice however that the word “you” is not clearly indicative of the nation Israel, Jesus could simply be addressing the present rejecting leaders. In fact, just two verses later, in Matthew 21:45, the Jewish leaders indicate that Jesus was specifically addressing them! (This is the conclusion of Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, p. 59.) The nation of Israel is nowhere mentioned in this passage. 

Secondly, no reference is made to the Church’s being the replacement. The words Jesus uses here are given to a people. This could be a reference to individuals who are responsive to Jesus—or to a better Israel in the future versus the self-righteous pharisaical leaders. He is addressing those who suppressed the multitudes to whom they were supposed to be pastoring. This is the position of Vlach, Has The Church Replaced Israel? p. 143, and Fruchtenbaum, Israelogy: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, p. 40, and McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, p. 296–97. 

Even if given to a people were a reference to the Church, the passage does not rule out a future restoration of the nation Israel. Accordingly this passage should not be used to roundly and conclusively suggest that God is finished with Israel— especially when at least 13 other books of the Bible state otherwise.³ 

B. ISRAEL LANGUAGE SUPPOSEDLY APPLIED TO THE CHURCH 

Supersessionists believe that language depicting of Israel is applied to the Church in the NT; they conclude that the NT therefore identifies the Church as Israel. Let us take a careful look at a sampling of some of those passages in order to gain a better understanding of this assumptive error. 

1. Galatians 6:16 

And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. 

This is the primary text cited by Replacement Theologians that supposedly indicates the Church is called Israel in the NT. The reasoning again is that if you can say that the Church is Israel in the NT, then you can conclude that God is done with Israel; Israel has been replaced by the Church. The problem with this conclusion, however, is the overall context and main thesis of the epistle. The Galatian epistle is written to refute the Judaizers, those Jews in the Galatian Church who were teaching that salvation is not by faith alone in Christ alone, but by also keeping the OT law—a wrong view of true salvation. Contextually and properly understood, this passage is saying: Near the end of this strong polemic, Paul throws a “bouquet” to those Jews in this particular church who had not been corrupted by the Judaizers. He appropriately calls those who were trusting in Christ alone for their salvation the [true] Israel of God. Paul is making a distinction between the true believers of Jewish descendance and the Judaizers whom he had already anathematized for their salvation-doctrine heresy (cf. Galatians 1:6–9). They were the Israel not of God so to speak (in the sense of God’s way of salvation always having been by faith alone, per Genesis 15:6). Contextually, Paul is closing his letter on an upbeat, in part, commending genuine Jewish Christians who possessed a proper understanding and belief in what he and the other Apostles taught about what it actually means to be saved. Commentator George (Galatians, p. 440) aptly further states in this regard: 

It is strange that if Paul intended simply to equate the Gentile believers with the people of Israel that he would make this crucial identification here at the end of the letter as opposed to including it in the main body where he developed at length the argument for justification by faith. 

In fact, the Scriptures always mention Israel in the context of national Israel—not in a confusing sense as the Church (and in violation of the principle of the perspicuity of Scripture). 

There are no passages in the whole of the New Testament that say the Church is Israel or that the Church is a Replacement of Israel. 

2. 1 Peter 2:9–10 

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of god; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. 

The small capital letters in the Lockman Foundation’s New American Standard Bible (1995) (used above) are intended by the translation team to serve to indicate OT passages (in this case Deuteronomy 7:6–8) that are being repeated and quoted by the NT author. This feature of this particular Bible translation is very helpful. In this sense, in 1 Peter 2:9–10, Peter is using OT terms spoken by Moses to identify Israel and to describe those who have trusted in Christ for salvation—folks who in the NT are a part of the Church. 

If both Israel and the Church are God’s people relative to God’s Old Covenant with Israel, and His New Covenant with the Church, does it not follow that the same descriptors could apply to each? Such is this case, but here’s the point: 

Simply because “Israel terms” are applicable as well to the Church does not mean that the Church is Israel. 

Importantly to this study, the passage makes no claim that the Church has replaced Israel. 

3. Romans 11:16–24 

We now arrive at the crux passage in the debate. (Rather than quote this lengthy passage herein relative to space considerations, just make sure you take the time to read it.) This passage speaks about the Gentiles being grafted in with a literary device—a metaphor of an olive tree. Gentiles are depicted as the “wild olive branch” being grafted into “the rich root of the olive tree,” i.e., Israel. This beautiful language depicts an easy-to-understand parallel that seems to underscore the proposition of Replacement Theology. 

The later portion of the passage, however, works against their position. Paul goes on to reason that the Gentiles should not feel superior to the “natural branches,” i.e., the Jews, because God has the power to graft them in again (11:23, ESV). And such will be the case per Romans 11:26. 

C. SUPERSESSIONISTS MUST SOMEHOW OVERCOME THE CLEAR NEW TESTAMENT PRONUNCIATION OF ROMANS 11:26: THEY MUST DISCOUNT ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED 

In the context of the earlier portions of this passage (11:23); the meaning is quite evident—God has the power to someday graft back in national Israel. This understanding is underscored by the beginning of Romans 11, where in verse 1, Paul states, I ask, then, has God rejected His people? By no means! (ESV) The straightforward meaning of this passage, with a due, normal reading is not hard to comprehend. 

Supersessionists believe, however, that all Israel means believing Jews and Gentiles … i.e., that the all Israel Paul is speaking about is the Church. Context however does not support such an exaggerated understanding, especially in light of the verse that immediately follows 11:26—verse 11:27—which states, “This will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” Since the Church is made of those who have had their sins taken, then all Israel could not be a reference to the Church! So it follows that Paul does not have believers in mind when he says, all Israel! Rather, this passage serves to underscore that God has not forgotten, nor will He forget in the end times, the promises He made to Israel in Genesis 12! That is the simple understanding of the passage. 

Accordingly, it is difficult to understand why Supersessionists view Romans 11 as favorable to their position as it is not in the least bit! Rather, it serves to negate their position. 

D. THE SILENCE OF THE NT 

By reinterpreting the normal meaning of Romans 9–11, Supersessionists believe— incorrectly—that the NT does not speak to Israel’s restoration, but that God is done with them. The non-Supersessionists take just the opposite view: Romans 9–11 does speak to their restoration, as do other passages, including Acts 1:6 and Matthew 19:28. All three passages evidence Israel’s restoration, and the last two by no one other than Jesus Himself ! Note Acts 1:6: 

So when they had come together, they asked Him “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 

They were asking when the kingdom of Israel would be restored. In what follows after Acts 1:6, Jesus would not provide the direct answer to their question—but neither did He correct their assumption! Note Matthew 19:28: 

Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” 

In the eschatological future when Jesus returns and reigns, this passage more than suggests Israel will be there also! These two passages were utilized by commentator Peters in response to the Supersessionists claim that the NT was silent about the future of Israel. So overwhelming was his exegetical argument that many of his opponents conceded the debate (cf. The Theocratic Kingdom of our Lord Jesus, the Christ as Covenanted in the Old Testament, 2:50). 

Similar to the OT Prophets, Jesus and the NT are not silent about the restoration of national Israel. 

Again, at least 13 books of the Bible speak plainly and clearly about God’s intent in the End Times to restore national Israel!

VIII. THE CULMINATION OF SUPERSESSION’S THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTATION 

Romans chapters 9–11 categorically teach that there is a future for national Israel! For no other reason (and I have listed many) the arguments of the Supersessionists in their attempts to discount Israel’s future fail in light of this strong, powerful and straightforward passage. Waving the flag for the Supersessionist position is unsubstantiated, especially in light of the conditions and ensuing jeopardy that are stated in the Abrahamic Promise of Genesis 12. One must be very contemplative relative to how he treats national Israel. God has big plans for and is protective of her! 

IX. SUMMARY 

Both the OT and NT teach that Israel will be restored as a nation; Israel has a promised perpetuity that is nowhere discounted in or by Scripture. Furthermore, there is a perpetual, recurring biblical clarification and separateness between Israel and the Church. These sober facts render the Supercessionist position suspect. Accordingly, 

The advocates of Replacement Theology are out of bounds when they herald with peril “God is finished with Israel!” 

To the discerning, their arguments are specious and lacking in exegetical substance. Every policymaker needs to deeply ponder the implications of Supersessionism with utmost reflection, seriousness and prayer. No biblical reasons exist to believe that God is finished with Israel—and there are no godly reasons to justify being anti-Israel.⁴ Our nation must stand with Israel because He commands it and because the God-given consequences to do otherwise are fearful. 

READ PART I

 

1. I agree with Craig Blaising’s observation, but many Evangelical leaders disagree with me on this point. They believe Supersessionism is the majority opinion amongst Evangelicals today. 

2. The sheer number of passages that proclaim God’s future plans for Israel beyond the Church Age as are referenced in this study are many. It is difficult for me to conclude, as must those who hold to Replacement Theology, that passages in the books of Acts, Amos, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, Genesis, Isaiah, Joel, Matthew, Psalm, Revelation, Romans, 2 Samuel, and Zechariah—that’s 13 books of the Bible—do not actually mean what they appear to mean! 

3. One of the main rules of Hermeneutics is that the homogenous meaning of a majority of clearly-stated passages relative to a matter need to interpret the vague and less precise passages since Scripture’s self-proclamation is that it is infallible and inerrant. 

4. For further study on this issue refer to the excellent, comprehensive book, Forsaking Israel, Larry D. Pettegrew, Kress Biblical Resources; The Woodlands, Texas. 2021.