If the sun and moon are still up there, God’s covenantal bond with Israel is still down here. That’s Jeremiah’s logic, and it frames everything that follows.“As Long as the Sun and Moon Endure”
My aim is to present a thorough Biblical rebuttal to Replacement Theology.
Scripture teaches continuity, not cancellation. The New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) is explicitly promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, and God swears by the fixed order of creation that Israel will never cease to be a nation before Him (Jeremiah 31:35-37). The New Testament confirms, not overturns, this: Gentiles are grafted into Israel’s olive tree (Romans 11); Gentiles share Israel’s covenants (Ephesians 2:12-13), and are called to provoke Israel to jealousy, not replace her (Romans 11:11). Misreading a handful of texts to erase Israel does violence to the plain sense of Scripture and, historically, has greased the rails for antisemitism. It has led to pogroms, expulsions, and even a Holocaust.
What follows is a detailed, text-by-text treatment.
1) In Jeremiah 31:31-37, the New Covenant is addressed to the Jewish people, and its guarantee is Cosmic.
Text and Terms
“I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (31:31). Hebrew: berit chadashah… et-beit Yisrael ve’et-beit Yehudah. The recipients are named twice (vv. 31, 33) to prevent sleight of hand. (Something replacement theologians are very good at.)
Cosmic oath (31:35-37): If the sun, moon, and stars ever fail, then Israel will cease. God binds Israel’s endurance to creation itself.
Exegetical Notes
Chadash can mean “new” in quality - renewed in operation. Either way, the covenant is with Israel; its newness is written on hearts (v. 33), not reassigned to a different people.
The legal form resembles Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) covenant oaths that appealed to witnesses. Here God calls creation itself as a witness. The hyperbolic conditions (“if the heavens can be measured…”) show it is impossible for the covenant God made with Israel to be broken.
There is theological force behind this oath. These verses in Jeremiah 31 are the "north star." Any reading of later texts must harmonize with Jeremiah’s double claim: (1) who receives the covenant, and (2) how long Israel remains a people before God. The sun and moon are still shining; therefore, Israel remains.
If a theology “replaces” Israel, it has (by God’s own oath) claimed that the cosmos has collapsed. Or perhaps they think God lied or exaggerated. Whichever it is, the result is that they make God a liar.
2) In Matthew 21:33-46 (esp. v. 43) we see a stewardship judgment, not a Covenant revocation.
The Context and Background of the Parable:
Jesus’ Parable of the Tenants is set inside Israel’s prophetic tradition (compare Isaiah 5:1-7, the Vineyard Song). In that song, Israel is the vineyard and God is its planter.
What changes in the Parable from Isaiah's Vineyard Song?
Owner = God
Vineyard = Israel (unchanged)
Tenants = corrupt leaders (changed)
Servants = prophets
Son = Messiah
When Jesus says, “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits” (v. 43), the “you” is the tenant-class (the unfaithful leaders) not “Israel” as a nation. The vineyard is not bulldozed; only the management changes.
How this fits in the Canon:
In Matthew 23:39, Jesus expects a future Jewish confession: “You will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes…’” The “until” presupposes Israel’s ongoing identity and ultimate repentance. Revoking the vineyard would make this nonsensical. And, again, it would make God a liar or a God who doesn't know what He's talking about - in other words, a God who cannot be trusted.
Matthew 21:43 moves stewardship to faithful hands (initially Jewish apostles!). It does not move election to a different people.
3) Galatians 3:28-29 is equal access in Christ. It is not an erasure of Israel.
“Neither Jew nor Greek… you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.”
Paul is addressing soteriological status, not abolishing created/covenantal distinctions. He also says “neither male nor female,” but sexual differentiation plainly endures. (Unless you belong to a group who can't define what a woman is.)
The argument is Abrahamic: Gentiles share blessing with Abraham’s family through the Messiah (compare Genesis 12:3; Galatians 3:8). Inclusion ≠ dispossession.
Galatians 3 is about the access of all to salvation; it does not nullify God’s national promises to Israel.
4) Galatians 6:16, the question is who is “the Israel of God”?
“Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, and upon the Israel of God.” Greek: kai epi ton Israēl tou Theou. The most natural reading takes kai as conjunctive, distinguishing two groups: (1) all who follow this rule (Gentile believers), and (2) the Israel of God (believing Jews).
An important point to consider:
Paul never uses “Israel” to mean “Church” anywhere else. In every other occurrence (70+), “Israel” refers to the Jewish people.
In Galatians (ground zero for the Judaizer controversy) Paul is eager to honor Jewish believers who keep the truth of the gospel, not linguistically erase them.
The “Israel of God” most coherently refers to Jewish believers; it does not redefine “Israel” as the multi-ethnic Church.
5) In Ephesians 2:11-22, the wall being removed is enmity, not the covenants.
Gentiles were once “strangers to the covenants (plural) of promise” (v. 12) but are now “brought near by the blood of Christ” (v. 13). Christ “has broken down the dividing wall of hostility” (v. 14) to create “one new man” (v. 15).
The “wall” is hostility, which is embodied in sin. It is not the Abrahamic/Davidic promises themselves.
“Brought near” to the covenants presupposes those covenants still exist. Gentiles gain access; they don’t cause the covenants to expire.
“One new man” describes reconciled corporate life in Messiah. It does not erase the category “Jew” (Paul still calls himself an Israelite in Romans 11:1) or “Gentile” (Romans 11:13).
Ephesians 2 is about reconciliation to Israel’s God and Israel’s covenants, not replacement of Israel by Gentiles.
6) Romans 9:6 - 8 : Inner Faithfulness Within Ongoing National Election
“Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel… it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise.”
How this is misused: Supersessionists claim “true Israel” = Church; therefore, ethnic Israel is theologically irrelevant.
Paul’s actual argument in Romans 9 distinguishes between unbelieving and believing within Israel (a “remnant” concept long present in the prophets). The letter does not stop there: Romans 11 returns to Israel’s national future: “all Israel will be saved” (11:26), the nation remains “beloved… for the sake of the patriarchs,” and “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (11:28-29).
Romans 9 handles the problem of unbelief within Israel; Romans 11 guarantees Israel’s ultimate restoration. The nation is not replaced.
7) In Romans 11, the Olive Tree speaks of grafting in, not uprooting.
Consider the metaphor in full:
Root = patriarchal covenants (Abrahamic/Davidic)
Natural branches = Israel (some broken off temporarily because of unbelief)
Wild branches = Gentiles (grafted in among the natural branches)
Key Lines:
“Do not be arrogant toward the branches” (11:18).
“God has the power to graft them in again” (11:23).
“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” (11:25-26).
“As regards election they are beloved… the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (11:28-29).
If Gentiles are warned against arrogance toward Israel, any theology that erases Israel is precisely what Paul forbids. The apostolic posture is gratitude and hope, not triumphalism.
Answer to “the Church is the new Israel”: Paul’s image makes this impossible. The Church is wild branches in Israel’s tree, not a new tree.
8) In 1 Peter 2:9-10, we see the sharing of titles, not the stealing of identity.
“A chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation…”
Peter quotes Israel’s vocation from Exodus 19:5-6 and Isaiah 43. His point: in Messiah, believers (from Israel and the nations) now participate in Israel’s priestly calling to the world.
Participation is not expropriation.
Peter never says, “Therefore, Israel is no longer Israel.”
The NT continuously preserves Jewish identity (e.g., thousands of Jews in Acts 21:20 who believe in Jesus and are zealous for the Law).
1 Peter includes Gentiles in Israel’s priestly mission; it does not annul Israel’s peoplehood.
9) Hebrews 8:6-13 = a “Better Covenant.” It ≠ “Israel Abolished.”
Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31 verbatim: the New Covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
“Obsolete” (8:13) refers to the Levitical system and its temple-mediated administration, not to Israel’s existence or to the Abrahamic/Davidic promises.
The author’s whole argument depends on Jeremiah 31; using it to erase Israel would self-destruct the passage.
Hebrews says the mode of mediation changes in Messiah; it does not say the people promised the covenant disappear.
10) Revelation 2:9 & 3:9 - “Synagogue of Satan”: = False Claimants in Local Conflict.
“I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.”
The phrase targets claimants proved false by their opposition to Messiah’s people (compare Romans 2:28-29’s inward/outward Jew contrast).
The letters address specific churches (Smyrna, Philadelphia) under local pressure, including denunciations to Roman authorities.
Revelation elsewhere preserves Israel’s symbolic integrity (12 tribes, Rev 7; 21’s gates named for the tribes).
This is not an ethnic slur; it is a moral and spiritual indictment of persecutors in particular cities. It cannot be universalized to cancel Israel.
11) Matthew 23, Jesus’ Woes: They are prophetic fire against hypocrisy, not a charter for replacement.
Jesus pronounces seven woes on scribes and Pharisees: shutting the kingdom, devouring widows’ houses, straining gnats and swallowing camels, cleansing the outside of the cup while leaving the inside filthy, whitewashed tombs, and honoring prophets while perpetuating their fathers’ murders.
Why This Matters:
Jesus stands with the prophetic tradition: God judges corrupt leadership to rescue His people.
The woes do not dissolve Israel; they purify her. That’s why the chapter ends in grief and hope for Jerusalem (23:37-39), not cancellation.
Application: Use Jesus’ sharpest language to unmask hypocrisy, not to justify erasing the people He came to shepherd.
12) Paul’s Ferocity in Defense of the Gospel (Galatians/Philippians/Corinthians)
Galatians 5:1-12
“If you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you” (v. 2).
“I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves” (v. 12).
Paul targets Judaizers who add boundary-markers as salvific requirements. He is not cursing Israel; he is cursing a false gospel.
Galatians 2:11-14
Paul publicly opposes Peter when fear of “the circumcision party” compromises table-fellowship. Compromise endangers truth; Paul refuses it.
Philippians 3:2-3
“Beware of the dogs, the evildoers, the mutilation.” The real “circumcision” is Spirit-wrought worship. Again: Paul attacks legalistic perversion, not Jewish identity.
2 Corinthians 11 - 13
“False apostles… disguising themselves.” He will wield discipline if needed. The tone is fierce because the stakes are eternal.
Takeaway: Apostolic sharpness belongs against false gospels (including any teaching that dehumanizes Jews or disfigures God’s covenants) not against the people God calls “beloved.”
13) Historical Trajectory: How Misreadings Fed Antisemitism
Early drift: Post-apostolic writers (e.g., Justin Martyr, later Augustine) increasingly spoke of the Church as “true Israel.”
Medieval and modern fruit: Social and theological contempt for Jews grew, at times exploding into persecution.
Reformation tensions: While restoring Scripture’s authority, some reformers carried supersessionist assumptions forward.
Biblical corrective: Returning to Jeremiah 31 and Romans 11 re-centers the canon on God’s fidelity to Israel.
Moral clarity: Any theology that fantasizes about a “second Holocaust” is not Christian correction but satanic hatred. It must be named and rejected.
14) Summary
Jeremiah 31. The New Covenant belongs to Israel and Judah; God swears by sun and moon that Israel endures.
The vineyard logic. Matthew 21 shifts stewardship from corrupt tenants; it does not uproot the vineyard.
Romans 11. Grafting > replacing; arrogance toward Israel is forbidden; the calling is irrevocable.
“One new man.” Ephesians 2 reconciles peoples into Israel’s covenants; it doesn’t erase Israel.
“Israel of God.” It honors Jewish believers; it doesn’t rename the Church “Israel.”
“Synagogue of Satan” = local persecutors/false claimants, not a blanket on Jews.
Jesus and Paul confront hypocrisy and false gospels - never God’s covenant with Israel.
Conclusion: God’s Character Is on Trial
If God can abandon the people to whom He swore by the cosmos, on what basis do Gentiles trust His promise in Christ? The integrity of the gospel is at stake in the integrity of God’s covenants. The Church’s calling is not to take Israel’s place but to take our place among Abraham’s family - by grace - until Israel’s fullness comes and the world sees what Paul foresaw:
“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!” (Romans 11:33)
On Jeremiah 31
“God names Israel and Judah twice as New Covenant partners (Jer 31:31, 33) and swears by the sun and moon (31:35-37) that Israel endures. The lights still shine; Israel still stands. If your theology says otherwise, it contradicts God’s oath.”
On Matthew 21:43
“Read the whole parable: the vineyard (Israel) remains; only the tenants (corrupt leaders) are replaced. Stewardship shifts; election does not.”
On Galatians 3:28
“Equal access to salvation does not erase Israel any more than it erases male/female. Paul is leveling the ground at the cross, not canceling covenants.”
On Galatians 6:16
“The Greek most naturally reads two groups: ‘all who walk by this rule’ and ‘the Israel of God’ (Jewish believers). Paul never uses ‘Israel’ to mean ‘Church.’”
On Ephesians 2
“Gentiles are brought near to Israel’s covenants (plural). The wall removed is hostility, not the Abrahamic/Davidic promises.”
On Romans 9 - 11
“Romans 9 addresses unbelief within Israel; Romans 11 guarantees national restoration: grafting back in, ‘all Israel will be saved,’ irrevocable calling.”
On Revelation 2:9; 3:9
“The phrase targets false claimants/persecutors in specific cities, not Jews as a people. Revelation elsewhere preserves 12-tribe symbolism.”
No comments:
Post a Comment