Few issues in theology have been as questioned, and as significant, as the question of Israel’s role in God’s plan of redemption. For centuries, bible scholars have debated whether the Church has taken Israel’s place, whether Israel retains a distinct covenantal identity, or whether there is some ongoing mystery that unites the two without erasing either. The stakes are not merely academic. This debate shapes Christian preaching, interfaith dialogue, and international attitudes toward the Jewish people and the State of Israel. At its heart, the issue is one of God’s faithfulness: does He keep His promises to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or has He redefined those promises in the formation of the Church?

In recent years, a particular interpretation has gained attention, sometimes called “fulfillment theology.” Proponents argue that Israel’s role in God’s plan was temporary, that the Old Covenant nation was “cut off,” and that the Church now embodies the true Israel of God. All the prophetic promises, in this reading, find their ultimate fulfillment in the Church, and Israel as a people is left with no continuing covenantal privilege. While this position avoids the blunt language of “replacement,” its effect is the same: Israel’s role is functionally erased, and the Church becomes the sole heir of the covenant.

This interpretation may sound reverent, for it seems to magnify Christ as the climax of Israel’s story. Yet it introduces serious problems. It severs the Church from the root of Israel’s identity, undermines Paul’s teaching in Romans 9–11, and risks spreading a theology that has historically fueled antisemitism. It also narrows the biblical witness, flattening a rich and diverse covenantal story into a single track where Israel disappears. Scripture, however, portrays something more complex and more beautiful—a divine plan in which both Israel and the Church remain integral to God’s purposes.

What follows is not a dismissal of Israel’s need for the Gospel, nor a denial that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ. On that point Scripture is clear: “For there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). But the question is whether the Jewish people retain an enduring identity and covenantal role in God’s plan. To this the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus Himself bear unified testimony: God has not cast away His people, and the gifts and calling bestowed on them remain irrevocable.

If Christians are to be faithful both to the text of Scripture and to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they must resist simplistic readings that erase Israel. A balanced theology sees the Church as grafted into Israel’s covenantal root, sharing in its blessings without boasting against the branches. It affirms unity in Christ without demanding uniformity, and it preserves Israel’s ongoing significance without denying the centrality of the cross.

The Irrevocable Calling of Israel

Paul’s words in Romans 11 form the cornerstone of this discussion. Writing with anguish for his kinsmen, he anticipates the objection that Israel’s widespread unbelief implies God has rejected them. His response is emphatic: “I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew” (Romans 11:1–2). Paul’s own identity as both apostle to the Gentiles and faithful Jew demonstrates that Israel’s story did not terminate at the cross. The covenant remains, though Israel’s national experience of it is presently marked by partial hardening. In today’s language, Paul is placing a guardrail against attitudes that can harden into antisemitism, calling the church to humility, gratitude, and honor toward the people through whom God gave us the Scriptures.

The language Paul uses is deliberately strong. He appeals to God’s foreknowledge, a term that conveys more than mere foresight; it signals covenantal love and sovereign election. To say that Israel is “foreknown” is to say that they remain bound to God’s purpose by His own initiative, not by their performance. Their unbelief brings consequences, but it does not annul God’s fidelity. This is why Paul insists that even in times of apostasy there has always been a remnant preserved by grace (Rom. 11:5).

The existence of a believing remnant is not evidence that Israel has been replaced, but proof that God’s covenant persists despite national unbelief.

Later in the same chapter, Paul makes an even more definitive claim: “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:28–29). Here Paul holds together two realities: Israel may oppose the Gospel in part, yet they remain beloved because of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The word “irrevocable” underscores the permanence of this calling. It cannot be withdrawn or reassigned, for God’s faithfulness is not contingent upon human obedience.

This distinction is crucial. To affirm Israel’s continuing election is not to deny the centrality of Christ or the necessity of faith. Rather, it is to recognize that God’s covenant with Israel has a future dimension that the Church must respect. Paul envisions a time when Israel’s stumbling will give way to fullness, when their partial hardening will be lifted, and when “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26). That future hope is not replaced by the Church but held in tension with the Church’s present participation in the covenant blessings.

If Christians dismiss this teaching and claim Israel’s promises for themselves alone, they risk not only distorting Scripture but also committing the very arrogance Paul warns against: “Do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you” (Rom. 11:18). The Church flourishes because of Israel’s covenantal root; it does not exist apart from it.

The “Israel of God” in Paul’s Theology

Much of the case for saying the church has replaced Israel rests on one line in Galatians 6:16: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” On this single verse some draw a sweeping conclusion that “the Israel of God” is simply another name for the whole church. That claim is not settled. A closer look at the Greek points in a different direction.

The Greek text reads: kai hosoi tō kanoni toutō stoichēsousin, eirēnē ep’ autous, kai eleos, kai epi ton Israēl tou Theou “peace upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Three features favor two groups.

1. First, Paul repeats the preposition epi (“upon”) before “the Israel of God,” which naturally marks a second, additional object of the blessing, not a restatement of the first.
2. Second, the conjunction kai here functions additively (“and”), not epexegetically (“even”); if Paul meant “even,” we would expect a smoother apposition without repeating epi, or a clarifying formula such as “that is.”
3. Third, within Paul’s letters “Israel” consistently refers to the Jewish people, not the church as a whole. The most coherent reading, then, is that Paul pronounces peace and mercy upon those who walk by this rule the largely Gentile believers in Galatia and also upon the Israel of God the Jewish believers, the remnant who share the same rule of the new creation. This preserves Paul’s hallmark pattern of unity in Christ without erasing the real distinction between Jews and Gentiles.

Interpreting Galatians 6:16 as a wholesale redefinition of Israel contradicts Paul’s wider teaching. In Romans 11, he labors to maintain Israel’s distinct identity, warning Gentiles not to assume superiority. He distinguishes between “Israel according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 10:18) and the believing remnant, but he never erases the category of Israel itself. If Paul had meant that the Church is now the sole Israel, his extended olive tree metaphor would lose coherence. There would be no natural branches left to be grafted in again, and no basis for the future salvation of Israel he so passionately envisions.

Moreover, Paul’s appeal to the Old Testament undercuts supersessionist readings. He quotes Isaiah to show that Israel’s promises still hold significance (Rom. 11:26–27). He grounds his theology in the faithfulness of God, not in a shifting identity that redefines Israel out of existence. To suggest that Paul reinterprets Israel as the Church in one verse while affirming Israel’s ongoing role in entire chapters elsewhere is inconsistent and implausible.

A more balanced interpretation affirms both truths: Gentiles are fully included in the covenantal blessings through faith in Christ, and Israel retains a distinct identity as God’s chosen people.

Unity in Christ does not erase difference; it sanctifies it.

The “Israel of God” includes the faithful remnant of Jews, while the Gentile Church shares in the root and fatness of the olive tree. This vision honors both continuity and diversity without collapsing one into the other.

Prophetic Promises of Restoration

The Old Testament prophets consistently spoke of Israel’s future restoration in language that exceeds mere spiritual metaphor. Ezekiel records God’s promise: “For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land” (Ezek. 36:24). This restoration is not conditional on Israel’s righteousness; rather, it is grounded in God’s zeal for His holy name: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake” (Ezek. 36:22). To spiritualize these promises away or reassign them to the Church is to deny the very reason God gives for their fulfillment.

Jeremiah’s prophecy of the New Covenant reinforces this point. “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31). The recipients are not unnamed; they are explicitly identified as Israel and Judah. Christians rightly understand that they share in the blessings of this New Covenant through Christ, yet participation does not equal replacement. To erase Israel from this promise contradicts both the words of Jeremiah and the faithfulness of the God who speaks them.

The eschatological visions of the prophets further confirm Israel’s ongoing role. Isaiah foresaw a time when the nations would stream to Jerusalem, saying, “Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isa. 2:3). This vision situates Israel at the center of God’s redemptive plan, not as a relic of history but as a living witness in the age to come.

To claim that these promises have been fully absorbed into the Church ignores their geographical, national, and covenantal dimensions. It also disregards the prophetic insistence that God acts for His name’s sake in fulfilling them. If God were to revoke these promises and reassign them to another people, His reputation for faithfulness would be compromised. The God who swore by Himself to Abraham cannot contradict His own oath without undermining His very nature.

Therefore, the prophetic witness resists supersessionism. The Church’s participation in Israel’s promises is real, but it is derivative. Gentile believers are blessed with believing Abraham (Gal. 3:9), not because Abraham’s descendants have been erased, but because God has chosen to extend His covenantal mercy beyond Israel to embrace the nations. The Church is grafted in, not substituted.

The Witness of Jesus and the Apostles

Jesus Himself affirmed Israel’s future role in the Kingdom. To His disciples He promised, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28). The promise presumes the continuing identity of the twelve tribes, not their dissolution into a generic Church. If Jesus envisioned the Church as the new and only Israel, such a promise would make little sense.

Peter likewise preached a message of restoration to his Jewish audience in Jerusalem: “That He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:20–21). The restoration Peter anticipates is not metaphorical but comprehensive, encompassing the prophetic visions that included Israel’s renewal. This was proclaimed after Pentecost, when the Church had already been established, yet Peter still spoke of Israel’s hope as future.

Paul too maintained this dual vision. He described his ministry as one that sought to provoke Israel to jealousy (Rom. 11:14). Such provocation only makes sense if Israel retains a covenantal identity distinct from the Gentile Church. His ultimate hope is not Israel’s dissolution but Israel’s salvation: “And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob’” (Rom. 11:26).

The Book of Revelation echoes this continuity by naming the twelve tribes of Israel in its vision of the sealed (Rev. 7:4–8) and by depicting the New Jerusalem with gates named for the twelve tribes and foundations named for the twelve apostles (Rev. 21:12–14). The eschatological city is built upon the unity of Israel and the Church, not the erasure of one by the other. The imagery is integrative, not substitutionary.

The testimony of Jesus and the apostles thus aligns with the prophets: Israel’s role is not obsolete.

The Church does not replace Israel but stands alongside it in God’s unfolding plan. Both are embraced within the one redemptive work of Christ, but neither is erased.

Unity Without Erasure

At the core of this debate lies a question about the nature of unity in Christ. Supersessionist readings often argue that Jew and Gentile become one by erasing the distinction between them. Yet Paul’s vision of unity is richer and more complex. In Ephesians, he declares that Christ “has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation” (Eph. 2:14). But the wall is broken not to dissolve identities but to reconcile them in peace. Unity is achieved through reconciliation, not uniformity.

Paul’s olive tree metaphor in Romans 11 reinforces this vision. Gentiles are grafted into the tree, sharing in the root and fatness, but the natural branches retain their identity and can yet be grafted in again (Rom. 11:23). The metaphor collapses if the tree itself has been redefined as the Church. Unity is possible precisely because Israel continues to exist as Israel, and Gentiles are incorporated into that story.

This model of unity has profound implications for Christian theology and practice. It cautions the Church against triumphalism, reminding believers that their identity is derivative, rooted in God’s covenant with Israel. It also affirms that Jewish identity is not erased in Christ but fulfilled. Jews who believe in Jesus remain part of Israel even as they embrace the Church, and Gentiles who believe in Jesus share in Israel’s blessings without becoming ethnic Jews.

To erase Israel in the name of unity is to misrepresent the Gospel. The Good News does not homogenize humanity; it reconciles diversity in Christ. As John’s vision makes clear, the redeemed are from “every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). Unity in the Kingdom of God is global and multi-ethnic, and Israel’s unique role is honored within that diversity.

Thus, the Church best reflects Christ’s work when it embraces this reconciled diversity. Unity without erasure, inclusion without replacement, this is the biblical vision that honors both Jew and Gentile, Israel and the nations, without collapsing one into the other.

The Dangers of Theological Erasure

History bears witness to the consequences of supersessionist thinking. When the Church has taught that Israel has been permanently cast aside, this has too often provided justification for hostility against the Jewish people. From medieval expulsions and forced conversions to massacres and, in some cases, the theological climate that allowed antisemitism to flourish in modern Europe, the narrative of a “rejected Israel” has done incalculable harm. Theology is never merely abstract; it shapes the imagination of communities and can foster either compassion or contempt.

The risk today is subtler but no less real. When Israel is described only as a political state or dismissed as merely “apostate,” Christians risk perpetuating old stereotypes that undermine Jewish dignity. Even if proponents of supersessionism disclaim antisemitism, their theology can unintentionally foster it by stripping the Jewish people of their covenantal identity and treating them as irrelevant to God’s purposes. To deny Israel’s enduring place in God’s plan is to create fertile soil for disdain.

Scripture itself warns against this posture. Paul directly rebukes Gentile arrogance toward Israel: “Do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you” (Rom. 11:18). To cut Israel out of the covenantal picture is not only inaccurate but spiritually dangerous, leading Gentiles to pride and forgetfulness. Instead, humility and gratitude should characterize the Church’s relationship with Israel.

Moreover, theological erasure diminishes the Church itself. When Christians forget their Jewish roots, they risk distorting their own identity. The Scriptures, the covenants, the Messiah Himself these are gifts that come through Israel (Rom. 9:4–5). To sever the Church from Israel’s ongoing role is to disconnect it from the very narrative that gives it life.

The Church is healthiest when it remembers that it has been “grafted in” rather than “planted anew.”

Thus, the danger of theological erasure is twofold: it harms Jewish-Christian relations by perpetuating disdain, and it weakens the Church by fostering arrogance and forgetfulness. A faithful theology must resist both dangers by affirming Israel’s ongoing significance in God’s redemptive plan.

A Shared Hope for Jews and Christians

At the center of the Gospel is the truth that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ. This is as true for Jews as for Gentiles. Paul writes, “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved’” (Rom. 10:12–13). The Church proclaims this message universally, without favoritism, and extends the invitation of the Gospel to every nation, including Israel.

Yet this universal invitation does not erase Israel’s identity. Instead, it affirms the mystery of God’s plan: Israel remains beloved because of the patriarchs, and their story is not yet complete. Paul envisions a future in which Israel’s hardening is lifted, and “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26). This hope is not a guarantee of automatic redemption for every Jewish person, but it does point to a corporate turning to Christ that reflects God’s covenantal faithfulness.

For Christians, this shared hope demands humility. Gentiles are saved not because they have replaced Israel but because they have been grafted into Israel’s covenantal blessings. Their salvation is a gift of grace, not a mark of superiority. For Jews, this hope speaks of God’s enduring commitment, a promise that the God of their fathers has not abandoned them but continues to call them to Himself through Messiah.

A theology that honors both Jews and Gentiles must hold together two truths: Christ is the only way of salvation, and Israel retains an enduring covenantal role. This balance resists both a prideful spirit and an anything goes approach. It avoids the arrogance of saying, “The Church has replaced Israel,” while also avoiding the pluralism of saying, “Jews have their own covenant apart from Christ.” Instead, it proclaims one covenant fulfilled in Christ, open to Jew and Gentile alike, yet without erasing Israel’s identity.

This vision bears a strong witness to the world. It shows that God keeps his promises, that he values both unity and diversity, and that his saving plan reaches everyone while working through particular callings. For Jews and Christians alike, it is a call to humility, gratitude, and hope in the God who keeps covenant to a thousand generations.

Conclusion

The suggestion that the Church is the only “Israel of God” and that national or ethnic Israel no longer retains any covenantal role is both biblically unsound and historically dangerous. It disregards Paul’s teaching in Romans, misreads Galatians, ignores the prophetic promises of restoration, and contradicts the testimony of Jesus and the apostles. More than that, it undermines God’s own faithfulness, for He has sworn by Himself that His covenant with Israel would endure as surely as the sun, moon, and stars (Jer. 31:35–36).

A more faithful theology sees the Church as grafted into Israel’s story, not as erasing it. The Church participates in the blessings of the New Covenant but does not cancel the promises made to the fathers. Unity in Christ does not require the abolition of Israel but celebrates the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in one body, with each retaining its integrity.

This balanced vision offers a way forward for Christian theology that is both biblically faithful and pastorally responsible. It honors God’s faithfulness, respects the Jewish people, and strengthens the Church’s identity. It avoids the arrogance of boasting against the branches and instead fosters gratitude for being included in a covenantal story that began long before the Church was born.

The hope of the Gospel is wide enough to embrace both Jew and Gentile. It looks forward to the day when Israel’s partial hardening will be lifted, when the Deliverer will come out of Zion, and when the nations will stream to Jerusalem to learn the ways of the Lord. Until then, the Church is called to witness humbly, to pray fervently for Israel’s salvation, and to rejoice in the mystery of God’s plan.

The Church does not replace Israel. Rather, it joins Israel’s story through Christ, the Seed of Abraham. The gifts and the calling remain irrevocable, the covenant stands secure, and the God who keeps promises will bring His purposes to completion in ways that will silence boasting and magnify His grace.