ABSTRACT

            Supersessionism is the view that the church is the new or true Israel that has permanently replaced or superseded national Israel as the people of God. Because of the importance of this subject to Christian theology, this dissertation intends to make a contribution to theology by offering a systematic presentation and analysis of the doctrine of supersessionism.

This will be done in two primary ways. First, this dissertation will introduce and explain the major introductory issues related to supersessionism. This includes a discussion of what supersessionism is and a survey of the supersessionist perspective in church history. In addition, this work will present and explain the most common hermeneutical assumptions and theological arguments associated with the doctrine of supersessionism. It will also present and explain the most common hermeneutical assumptions and theological arguments associated with the doctrinal opposite of supersessionism—nonsupersessionism.

Second, in addition to explaining the major issues related to supersessionism, this dissertation will also offer an opinion concerning the validity of the supersessionist view. Upon evaluating the primary hermeneutical and theological arguments related to supersessionism and nonsupersessionism, this dissertation will argue that supersessionism is not consistent with the biblical witness. Thus, when the major arguments for and against supersessionism are considered, this work will conclude that the Scriptures do not support the view that the New Testament church is the new Israel that has forever superseded national Israel as the people of God.

            This presentation and analysis of supersessionism comes in five chapters. The first chapter introduces the major introductory issues related to supersessionism. Using the statements of Christian theologians and commentators, this chapter will offer a specific definition of supersessionism and discuss the various forms and variations within the supersessionist view. It will also discuss how views regarding supersessionism can influence perspectives on other major categories of Christian theology.

            Chapter two will survey the doctrine of supersessionism in church history. It will discuss the historical, political, and theological factors that led to the rise and acceptance of the supersessionist view. This chapter will also summarize how supersessionism was viewed in the Patristic, Medieval, Reformation, and Modern eras. Significant attention will be given to the views of Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Immanuel Kant, Friederich Schleiermacher, and Karl Barth. Chapter two will show that supersessionism has been the majority view of the Christian church from the second century A.D. through the nineteenth century A.D. It will also discuss how twentieth-century events such as the Holocaust, the establishment of the modern state of Israel, the rise of dispensationalism, and historical Jesus research have led many to reject the doctrine of supersessionism.

            Chapter three presents the theological case for supersessionism. Using statements from leading supersessionist theologians, this chapter surveys the hermeneutical assumptions and theological arguments most often used to support the idea that the church is now the new Israel that permanently supersedes national Israel as the people of God. In the realm of hermeneutics, supersessionists argue that: (1) the New Testament has interpretive priority over the Old Testament; (2) national Israel functioned as a type of the New Testament church; and (3) the New Testament indicates that Old Testament prophecies regarding national Israel are being fulfilled with the church. As for theological arguments, supersessionists argue that: (1) the New Testament teaches the permanent rejection of national Israel as the people of God; (2) application of “Israel” language to the church shows that the church is now the true Israel; (3) salvific unity between Jews and Gentiles rules out a restoration of national Israel; and (4) fulfillment of the new covenant with the church shows that the church is now the true Israel. This chapter will also discuss the biblical texts most used by supersessionists to support these hermeneutical and theological arguments.

            Chapter four presents the case against supersessionism, or, in other words, the case for nonsupersessionism. Using the statements of leading nonsupersessionist theologians, this chapter summarizes the primary hermeneutical assumptions and theological arguments most often used to show that that the church is not the true Israel who permanently replaces national Israel. The hermeneutical assumptions of nonsupersessionism are: (1) the Old Testament is not reinterpreted by the New Testament; (2) progressive revelation cannot cancel unconditional promises to Israel; (3) Israel is not a type of the church; and (4) Old Testament promises can have a fulfillment with both Israel and the church. The theological arguments of nonsupersessionism are: (1) the New Testament keeps Israel and the church distinct; (2) the New Testament reaffirms the Old Testament expectation of a future restoration for national Israel; (3) salvific unity between Jews and Gentiles does not rule out functional distinctions for Israel in the future; and (4) the new covenant has a double fulfillment—one with the church now and a future fulfillment with national Israel. This chapter will also discuss the biblical texts most often used by nonsupersessionists to support these arguments.

            Chapter five attempts to address whether supersessionism or nonsupersessionism is more consistent with the biblical witness. It does so by evaluating the specific hermeneutical and theological arguments made by both supersessionists and nonsupersessionists. The conclusion reached here is that nonsupersessionism is more consistent with the biblical witness than is supersessionism. While supersessionists have identified significant points of continuity between Israel and the church, there is not enough evidence to conclude that the New Testament promotes the view that the church supersedes national Israel in God’s plan.