- Apr 28, 2017
- 668
- 592
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Unitarian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
He shall build a house for My Name, and I shall establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (2 Samuel 7:13)
As a former supersessionist, I will be laying out my defense of non-supersessionism and also address some of the typical lines of defense used by supersessionists.
The Issue
Perhaps the best place to start this post is right here. It is right here that I will define the issue at hand. What is supersessionism? And what is non-supersessionism? For the purpose of this post, I will be operating off of the following definitions:
supersessionism - The position held by many "covenant theologians" that the church is the "new" or "true" Israel. The church has replaced or fulfilled national Israel's place in the plan of God.
non-supersessionism - For the purpose of this post, I have used negative terminology for my own position. That is, I am using terms that are just a denial of the other position. So, non-supersessionism is simply the position held by many "dispensational theologians" that the church has not replaced or fulfilled national Israel's place in the plan of God.
A Defense of Non-Supersessionism
1. God made promises to the physical descendants of Abraham.
I do not believe that this is necessarily a controversial point, but I do want to go ahead and cover all ground. When it comes to this topic, there is really no room for ambiguity.And Jehovah had said to Abram, Go out from your land and from your kindred, and from your father's house, to the land which I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation. And I will bless you and make your name great; and you will be a blessing. And I will bless those who bless you, and curse the one despising you. And in you all families of the earth shall be blessed. (Genesis 12:1-3; LITV)
So, let's summarize those promises:
- Land (Genesis 13:14-18; 15:18-21; Deuteronomy 30:1-10)
- Descendants (Genesis 17:6; 2 Samuel 7:12-16)
- Blessing and redemption (Jeremiah 31:31-24)
2. Those promises to the physical descendants of Abraham were unconditional.
The promises that were discussed above did not hang on any conditions. This is revealed in several places throughout the Scriptures, but let's just consider just one:And it happened, the sun had gone down, and it was dark. Behold! A smoking furnace and a torch of fire that passed between those pieces! On that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, I have given this land to your seed, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the giants, and the Amorite and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite. (Genesis 15:17-21; LITV)
Note that it is only Jehovah who is passing through the pieces and not Jehovah and Abraham. This indicates, as the next verse plainly states, that it was a covenant that Jehovah had made with Abraham and his seed based on no conditions! The only thing that made the covenant binding was Jehovah's sovereign will.
3. Those promises to the physical descendants of Abraham were everlasting.
Did the above promises ever expire? No, as God reaffirmed them with both Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 26:3-4; 28:14-15). The prophet Ezekiel prophescies a future Israel that owns the land promised to them:As I live, says the Lord Jehovah, Surely with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out, I will reign over you. And I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands in which you are scattered among them with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out. And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and I will be judging face to face there with you. Just as I was judging your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will be judging you, declares the Lord Jehovah. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant. (Ezekiel 20:33-37; LITV)
Not only that, but the prophet Zechariah prophecies that Israel will repent and be forgiven by God:
And I will pour on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of prayers. And they shall look on Me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they shall be bitter over Him, like the bitterness over the first-born. In that day the mourning in Jerusalem shall be great, like the mourning of Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddo. And the land shall mourn, each family apart: the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; all the families who remain, each family apart, and their wives apart. (Zechariah 12:10-14; LITV)
This clearly indicates that the covenant is everlasting.
4. Those promises are reinforced in the New Testament.
Perhaps this section will also serve to support the previous entry. I will go ahead and present some passages from the New Testament that clearly show that the covenant is everlasting and reinforced: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." (Matthew 19:28; ESV)
In the new world the twelve tribes of Israel will still exist. This would seem to indicate that Israel has not been replaced by the church.
So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority." (Acts 1:6-7; ESV)
The disciples asked Jesus if He would restore the kingdom of Israel. So, in their minds the promises made to Israel were still relevant. Rather than rebuking them, Jesus simply states that it is not for them to know the time and seasons. Essentially, Jesus states that the kingdom of Israel will be restored at somepoint, reaffirming the promises.
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. (Acts 3:19-21; ESV)
One can only assume that by "restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago," the author is referencing the promises made to Israel. The next passage that should be examined is Romans 11. However, I am going to just hit the high points rather than quoting an entire chapter on here.
Romans 10 ends with the following statement: "But of Israel he says, 'All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.' Picking up on this discussion of Israel, Paul asks a logical question. Has God rejected his people (v. 1)? The answer given by Paul is this: "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew" (v. 2). He goes on to say that just as God preserved a remnant before, He will do it again. Paul speaks about the grafting in of the Gentiles and then goes on to say:
Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." (v. 25-27)
So, in Romans 11 we have Paul stating that God has not abandoned Israel. We also have him saying that a "partial hardening" has come upon Israel "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." If one reflects on this passage, and all of the other passages I have cited, it becomes quite obvious that Israel has not been replaced or done away with by the church.
A Response to Supersessionism
1. The fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies.
It is not really in dispute that a plain reading of the Old Testament, without any other considerations, suggests a future restoration of the nation Israel. Consider the following passage:In that day I will raise up the booth of David that has fallen, and I will wall up its breaks. And I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as the days of old; so that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations on whom My name is called, declares Jehovah who is doing this. Behold, the days are coming, declares Jehovah, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him who draws along seed. And the mountains shall drop new must, and all the hills will be dissolved. And I will again bring the captivity of My people Israel. And they shall build the waste cities, and live in them. And they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine of them. They shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them on their land, and they shall never again be pulled up out of their land which I have given to them, says Jehovah your God. (Amos 9:11-15; LITV)
It seems quite clear that there will be a future restoration of Israel. Zechariah 14:16 states that "all the nations that have come against Jerusalem" will eventually go to the city "year after year" to keep the Feast of Booths. This would indicate that, at the very least, the city of Jerusalem will be restored. So the question is this: how does a supersessionist interpret these passages?
The answer, of course, is that a supersessionist must interpret passages such as Amos 9:11-15, Zechariah 14:16, Joel 3:17-18, etc. in a non-literal way. A literal interpretation of these passages would not be consistent with their view of the state (i.e., current condition) of Israel. They justify their non-literal interpretation method on several New Testament texts that they believe apply Old Testament prophecies about the nation Israel in non-literal ways. I will examine two of said texts in this post:
Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, "'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.'" (Acts 15:15-18; ESV)
Here we see that James is quoting Amos 9:11-12, which I quoted previously as a prophecy about the restoration of Israel. However, James is applying it in some fashion to God's work among the Gentiles (v. 14). Supersessionists interpret this passage as showing that the members of the church are now being considered as Israel. Is this an accurate understanding of the passage?
It is my position that Amos 9:11-15 has an initial application in the Gentiles, but this does not mean that the original and literal meaning of the prophecy in Amos 9 is completely lost. In Acts 15:15, James states that the "words of the prophets agree" with what is taking place among the Gentiles. The Greek word used in this passage that is translated as "agree" is συμφωνοῦσιν (symphonousin). According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, this term means "to be in accord, to harmonize, i. e., to agree together..." So, James does not state that the current situation with the Gentiles is a fulfillment of the words of the prophets. And James most certainly does not state that it is a complete fulfillment of the words of the prophets. We can read Amos and accept that the prophecies regarding the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God are being fulfilled without saying that the restoration of Israel is being fulfilled as well (in the context of Acts 15). The reality is that the Acts is not addressing the restoration of Israel (or lack of). It is not the topic being discussed in the book. So any effort to read that topic into the text will almost inevitably result in drawing too much from too little.
...even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"
"And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" (Romans 9:24-26; ESV)
It is in this passage that Paul quotes Hosea 1:10; 2:23. Supersessionists believe that Paul is taking two prophesies from the Old Testament about the nation Israel and applying them to the church. Therefore, the church must now be Israel and prophecies concerning the future of Israel now belong to the church. The problem with this understanding is that the issue being discussed in Romans 9 is God's sovereign will when it comes to election. It astonishes me that my fellow Calvinists would miss this completely! Paul is using the passages from Hosea to show that just as God was able to elect a people out of the rebellious northern tribes of Israel, He is also able to elect a people out of the Gentiles."And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" (Romans 9:24-26; ESV)
2. Types!
Many supersessionists hold the view that there is a typological relationship between Israel in the Old Testament and the church in the New Testament. Therefore, the church is the new Israel. This would work if the New Testament itself did not reinforce the promises made to the nation Israel! I already reviewed those passages in the previous section, so I will not take the time to revisit them here. However, since the nation Israel is obviously not replaced by the church in the New Testament, it would be absurd to suggest that it was merely a type only to be fulfilled by an anti-type.
