The Arguments For and Against Supersessionism

By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.

The doctrine of supersessionism holds that the New Testament church permanently replaces or supersedes national Israel as the people of God. Those who are nonsupersessionists, however, assert the opposite. They hold that the church is not the new Israel who replaces or supersedes national Israel as the people of God.

In this article we will briefly list the major hermeneutical assumptions and theological arguments of both supersessionism and nonsupersessionism. The purpose of this article is not to evaluate the arguments of either side. We are simply listing the main arguments made by both sides in this debate.

HERMENEUTICAL ASSUMPTIONS OF SUPERSESSIONISM

1.  INTERPRETIVE PRIORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT -- Supersessionists believe that Old Testament (OT) prophecies regarding Israel should be viewed through the lens of the OT. Thus, it is believed that the New Testament (NT) can transcend or redefine OT promises to Israel.

2.  NATIONAL ISRAEL VIEWED AS A TYPE -- Supersessionists view the church in Christ as the fulfillment of OT promises to national Israel. Thus national Israel was a type that has given way in significance to the greater antitype—the church.

3. NONLITERAL INTERPRETATION OF SOME OT TEXTS -- Supersessionists hold that OT texts that foretell physical blessings for Israel are being fulfilled in spiritual ways with the church. Allegedly, this is the case with Acts 2/Joel 2 and Acts 15/Amos 9.

THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS OF SUPERSESSIONISM

1.  ISRAEL HAS BEEN REJECTED -- Matt 21:43 states that the kingdom of God was taken from the nation Israel and given to the New Testament church. This signifies a change in the people of God from national Israel to the church.

2. CHURCH IS THE NEW ISRAEL -- The NT explicitly identifies the church as “Israel” in Gal 6:16. Plus texts such as Rom 2:28–29 and 1 Pet 2:9–10 apply Israelite imagery to the church. This means the church is identified as the new Israel.

3. EQUALITY RULES OUT A RESTORATION OF ISRAEL -- Jews and Gentiles are now united. Thus there can be no special identity or role for national Israel as texts like Eph 2:11–22 and Rom 11:17–24 show.

4. CHURCH INHERITS THE NEW COVENANT -- The New Covenant was made with Israel, but the NT says the church is participating in the New Covenant (Heb 8:8-13). Thus, the church is the new Israel since it is experiencing the fulfillment of the covenant.

HERMENEUTICAL ASSUMPTIONS OF NONSUPERSESSIONISM

1.  OT TEXTS VIEWED AS STARTING POINT -- Yes the NT shines light on the OT but the starting point for OT texts must be the OT texts themselves understood within their historical and grammatical contexts. The NT does not change the meaning of OT promises to Israel. To do so violates the meaning of God’s earlier revelation.

2. UNCONDITIONAL PROMISES CANNOT BE CANCELED -- If God unconditionally promises a restoration of national Israel, the NT would not revoke this promise. To do so would lead to contradictions within Scripture.

3. NATIONAL ISRAEL NOT A TYPE -- The fact that the NT reaffirms a future for Israel means that Israel cannot be a type whose significance has been overtaken by the NT church.

4. OT PROMISES CAN HAVE DOUBLE  FULFILLMENT -- OT promises can have a present fulfillment/application with the church and a future fulfillment with national Israel in the future. This is the case with Acts 2/Joel 2 and Acts 15/Amos 9.

THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS OF NONSUPERSESSIONISM

1. ISRAEL AND CHURCH DISTINCT -- Of the 73 references to “Israel” in the NT, none identify the church as Israel. The “Israel of God” reference in Gal 6:16 is referring to Christian Jews. Other passages like 1 Pet 2:9-10 show similarities between Israel and the church, but similarity does not mean sameness.

2. NT AFFIRMS FUTURE A FOR ISRAEL -- The NT explicitly reaffirms a future restoration of national Israel. This is what Jesus taught in Matt. 19:28 and what the apostles clearly believed in Acts 1:6. Paul also explicitly taught a national salvation and restoration of Israel in Rom 11:25-27.

3. EQUALITY NOT RULE OUT FUNCTIONAL DISTINCTIONS -- When it comes to salvation and spiritual blessings, believing Jews and Gentiles are equal. This unity and equality, however, does not rule out historical and functional distinctions between the groups. Nor does it mean that there cannot be a distinct role for national Israel in the future. Thus, Eph 2:11-22 and Rom 11:17-24 are not inconsistent with nonsupersessionism.

4. NEW COVENANT FULFILLED WITH ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH -- The New Covenant has a present fulfillment/application with the church (Heb 8:8-13); but, there will also be a future fulfillment of the covenant with national Israel in the future (Rom 11:27). Thus when it comes to the New Covenant, the fulfillment is “both/and.” It is for both Israel and the church.

Sign up for our FREE TheologicalStudies.org Newsletter