Replacement Theology in Romans 9-11

Paul struggles with the role of Israel in God’s salvific plan in Romans 9-11 much in the same way that Christian theologians have struggled with the idea in the past 2000 years. No take on supersessionism or anti-supersessionism is complete without an exegetical analysis of Romans 9-11. While this passage is most often used in support of the anti-supersessionism view, this paper will explore other varying degrees of supersessionist ideas that can be gleaned from these rich chapters. This will be proved by determining Paul’s use of “all Israel” throughout this passage. Compounding these views with Paul’s thoughts on the Abrahamic covenant, the reach of Christ’s salvific act, and if evangelism should include the Jews, one will see that Paul’s writings can be fairly interpreted as supersessionist in nature.

Much of the debate concerned with this area of research can be addressed by two key verses written by Paul in Romans. The first is the question itself, found in Romans 11:1, “I ask, then, has God rejected His people?” The second is the crux of the debate, Romans 11:26, “And in this way all Israel will be saved.” (Vlach 137) Obviously, depending on one’s own hermeneutics and interpretation of Israel throughout the Bible, these verses can be answered and perceived in many different ways.

Supersessionists are not uniform in their interpretation of “all Israel” and throughout the ages have offered several answers to who Paul is referring. The traditional view has been that Israel refers to those elected by God. These people are both Jew and Gentile, those who have been saved by grace through Jesus Christ. (Vlach 137) While this view has become less popular in the modern times, it was supported by several church fathers, including John Calvin. (Vlach 138) One could argue that Paul did not specifically speak of justification when talking about Israel being saved, but merely election. Thus, Paul is saying that these people will be saved based upon their call, rather than their faith. (Van Spanje 102)

The next view refers to “all Israel” as elected Jews throughout Biblical history. (Vlach 138) This interpretation normally depends on one’s own views on justification of pre-Christ Biblical figures. In this view, “all Israel” are those Jews throughout the history of time who have displayed faith in Christ, or more likely, Abrahamic faith in God. This is supported by Paul’s thoughts in Romans 9:6 that distinguish between true and untrue Israelites. The most straightforward interpretation of this distinction is those Israelites who claim promises based on birth and ethnic heritage as opposed to those whom God has “saved” through their Abrahamic faith. (Fackre 164) It is important to distinguish that this view is purely ethnic, and “all Israel” does not refer to believing Gentiles. (Vlach 138) This nuance in discussion of Israel in light of the Abrahamic faith is an important supporting piece of evidence. This is in direct opposition to the dispensationalist view that Romans 11 refers to Israel in direct form of national entity. (Dewitt 295)

Many in this camp have controversial views that have affected the credibility of a supersessionist interpretation of Romans 9-11. One debated issue is that of an eternal view of the Abrahamic covenant. There is not consensus. Some have gone so far to stake their belief in the whole Bible on the lasting nature of the Abrahamic covenant. Metzger states that, “if God does not fulfill it for all the faithful believing Jewish people... then God is not God at all and the Bible is worthless.” (Metzger 669) Another regards the salvific act of Christ unto the past. This backward reaching salvation is stretched to the limits by Karl Barth who believed that Romans 11 testified that all Jews will be granted an afterlife encounter with Jesus, where they will be saved. (Fackre 164) However, this should be rejected based on Hebrews 11:1.

Both of these larger views are focused on God’s saving work in reference to the past and not the future. An important way to reason this thinking as logical, is to read Paul’s answer to his own question in Rom. 11:1. When Paul asks if God has rejected His people, he does not respond by talking about the Olive tree, or a future saved remnant. Paul talks about himself, and how he is an Israelite, who God has not forgotten, through the death of his son Jesus Christ. (Vlach 139) Paul did not see himself as a partaker in faith, and thus not saved by obedience to the law. This interpretation points to the fact that Paul may have meant “all Israel” to mean those Jews who have been saved by Christ. (Fakre 165) This is a much narrower, but not unfounded, interpretation.

An interesting possible appendage to this is the interpretation that Paul used nuance in his wording when referring to Israel. Some argue that the different uses of “Abraham’s children,” “God’s children,” and “Abraham’s offspring” are references to spiritual Israel, or those who have been saved by faith. (Diprose 56) While Paul’s references to “Abraham’s descendants” and “natural children” are references to the unsaved Israel. (Diprose 56) While this would support supersessionist thought in Romans, it is built on weak foundation. The support of reading into this nuance goes back to reading nuance into Moses’ speaking of “children of God” and “children of Abraham.” (Diprose 56)

The third interpretation of this passage views all Israel being saved as an act of salvation but not of restoration. Thus, this view is supersessionist in the fact that it does not hold to a future role of promise for physical Israel, but it does admit that in the future there will be a great swell of Israelites who will come to Christian faith. (Vlach 140) This view is held by many of today’s prominent systematic theologians.  Erickson believes that the church is the new Israel, the nation of Israel still has a special future, and should be considered “the special people of God.” (Erickson, 1053) Wayne Grudem also thinks that Rom. 9-11 foretells of a widespread conversion of Jewish people, while still maintaining that the church is the new Israel. (Grudem 861)

All of these follow the supersessionist thought that Christ has fulfilled the promise of Israel, albeit to varying degrees. None of these would necessarily be considered extreme in their treatment of replacement theology. While some of these might fit into punitive supersessionism, this view is not clear from their interpretation of Romans 9-11. They are supersessionist to the extent that they believe that Israel was the exclusive channel God chose to reveal Himself, through His son, to the world. (Boettner 310) But the supporters of these various views are not in agreement on if there is further need for the kingdom of Israel. (Boettner 310)

Another important piece of evidence for a supersessionist reading of Romans 9-11 is how Paul addresses evangelism when talking about Israel. It is logical to think that if “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26) referred to every Jew, then Judaism would have to be accepted as a form of salvation. At the least, it would have to be accepted as a form of preservation of these people. Thus, it would not make sense for Paul to support evangelism or witness to Jews, since he would assume that they will be saved through their current faith. Without having to exegete any of Paul’s attacks on Judaizers and transpose them into this situation, one can find Paul’s thoughts on evangelism sandwiched in his thoughts on Israel in Romans 10. Paul first lays out salvation, “For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” (Romans 10:10) Then he addresses the need for evangelism by asking, “And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?” (Romans 10:14) This is particularity of Christ is a central tenet of the Christian faith and would logically apply to Jews in terms of evangelism. (Fackre 163) It has been argued by some that one could be a good Jew and be mistaken on the identity of the Messiah. (Soulen 9) This is not true in the case of Jesus Christ, Soulen explains that Jews reluctance to accept Jesus as God incarnate is a much bigger problem, because to be wrong in that regard is akin to a “grave violation of the prohibition against idolatry.” (Soulen 9) However, this particularity of Christ and His covenant superseding that of the Abrahamic is put into question when viewing Biblical theology. But in the terms of Romans 9-11 this issue is not fully addressed, and it is unfair to call Paul’s stance a “flat contradiction.” (Fackre 163)

To read through Romans 9-11 and say that there is no evidence for supersessionism to be considered a Biblical doctrine is inaccurate. (Vlach 3) It is clear that supersessionism is a view that is not entirely based on tradition and theory, but on exegeting scripture based on a valid interpretation of the Bible. While supersessionism may have grown out of the overwhelming theme of the New Testament, rather than on specific scripture, there are still specific passages that support the view in both the New and Old Testament. (Vlach 5) While there is an undeniable connection in history between supersessionism and anti-semitism, it is unfair to say that all supersessionists are inherently anti-Semitic, especially in light of the beliefs of current supersessionists. (Vlach 6)

To conclude, The view that Romans 9-11 is anti-supersessionist is not entirely true. If one is to look at the way that Paul defines the salvation of “all Israel” including his views on Christ’s salvific act of the past, present, and future, and his response to his own question of if Israel has been rejected, it is valid to interpret this passage as supersessionist. If one concludes that Paul viewed faith as the true marker of the Abrahamic covenant, it does not even matter if he believed the covenant was eternal in regards to Israel. Finally, it is hard to reconcile the belief of anti-supersessionism and the thought that all Israel will be saved in the future, with Paul’s thoughts on evangelism detailed in Romans 10.





Vlach, Michael J. Has the Church Replaced Israel?
Erickson, M.J. Christian Theology, 2nd Ed.
Grudem, W. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
Fackre, G. Ecumenical Faith in Evangelical Perspective
Soulen, R.K. The God of Israel and Christian Theology
Van Spanje, T.E. Inconsistency in Paul?
Metzger, John B. Discovering the Mystery of the Unity of God
Dewitt, Dale Dispensational Theology in America During the Twentieth Century
Diprose, Ronald E. Israel and the Church: The Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology
Boettner The Millenium