By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
One text often used by supersessionists to support the idea of the permanent rejection of national Israel is Matt 21:43.In this verse, which Frederick Dale Bruner calls “one of the most important verses in Matthew,” Jesus addressed the unbelief of the leaders of the nation Israel and announced his rejection of them because of their stubborn unbelief: “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it.”
What is the significance of Jesus’ words in Matt 21:43? Supersessionists often assert that Jesus was making two major points. The first was that the nation Israel had been permanently rejected as the people of God. The second is that the “nation” to whom the kingdom would be given is the church.
This view that Matt 21:43 teaches the replacement of Israel with the church was held in the Patristic Era. As Origen declared, “Our Lord, seeing the conduct of the Jews not to be at all in keeping with the teaching of the prophets, inculcated by a parable that the kingdom of God would be taken from them, and given to the converts from heathenism.” Irenaeus and Chrysostom, too, believed this text taught the permanent rejection of the Jews.This understanding of Matt 21:43, though, goes beyond just the Patristic Era. According to W. D. Davies and Dale Allison, this view that Matt 21:43 teaches the replacement of national Israel with the church is “the dominant interpretation in Christian history.”
This view of Matt 21:43, however, is improbable for several reasons. The first problem concerns the identity of the “you” from whom the kingdom would be taken. Several interpreters have pointed out that the “you” probably refers to the current leaders of Israel and not the nation as a whole as supersessionists have claimed. M. Eugene Boring, for instance, states: “Who is represented by the ‘you’ from whom the kingdom is taken? Who is the ‘nation’ to whom it is given? In the context, the addressees are clearly the chief priests and Pharisees . . . i.e., the Jewish leadership, not the people as a whole.” Making a similar point, David D. Kupp writes, “Jesus’ growing antipathy to the Jewish leaders has never spelled outright rejection of the Jewish crowds, the people of Israel. Even in 21.43 the target audience is explicitly the leaders, not the people.”
Boring and Kupp appear correct in their observations. Matt 21:45 states that the religious leaders “understood that He was speaking about them.” Anthony J. Saldarini argues that the supersessionist view is more in line with supersessionist presuppositions than with the actual meaning of Matthew 21:43: “This reading, which fits later Christian supercessionist interpretations of Jewish-Christian relations, is beset by several problems, the most obvious of which is that Matthew makes the chief priests and Pharisees apply the parable to themselves (21:45), not to Israel as a whole.” Since the context indicates that Jesus was speaking specifically to the religious leaders of his day, the supersessionist assertion that Jesus was announcing the permanent rejection of the nation Israel appears unlikely.
Another problem with the view that Jesus is declaring the permanent rejection of Israel is that other sections of Matthew’s gospel appear to reaffirm or hint at a future for Israel. As Sanders has pointed out, Matt 19:28 “confirms the view that Jesus looked for the restoration of Israel.”M. A. Elliott asserts that in Matthew’s gospel “nothing explicit is found regarding the rejection of Israel.”
A second problem concerns the supersessionist view that the nation to whom the kingdom would be given is the Christian church.The context of Matthew 21 makes it unlikely that the “nation” of whom Jesus is referring is the church. As Turner writes, “In verse 46 it is clear that the religious leaders believed Jesus was talking about them, not Israel as a whole. Thus it is reading too much into this verse to view it as indicating the replacement of Israel by the Gentile church.”Saldarini points out that theologians who interpret “nation” as the church “are reading in second-century Christian theology” into Matt 21:43.
Thus, Matthew 21:43 is not a supporting text for replacement theology.
Good thinking on both sides of the debate as far as it goes but, in my view, both are only partially correct and partially incorrect with unfortunate consequences.
Point #1: The Lord said in Matt. 15:24, “I am not sent unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” In a national sense, this remains true.
Point #2: In John 10:26, speaking to “the Jews” as the context shows, the Lord said, “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.” Whatever the spiritual state of the house of Israel was at the time, they were still His sheep, albeit lost sheep. But to the Jews, Christ does not even accord them this status. They are not of His sheep, period; thus, their general opposition to Christ’s message. How can the text in Matthew 21:43 be considered taking the kingdom from Israel if the Jews, according to Christ, are not of the house of Israel to begin with? In another place, He acknowledges they are “Abraham’s seed” but Abraham and Isaac had other descendents besides Jacob. For example, it is an historical fact (Josephus) that the descendents of Esau had infiltrated Jewry in the intertestamental period and Kind Herod was one of these.
Point # 3: John the Baptist told the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 3:9, “And think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” In other words, God does not need the Christ rejecting Jews in order to fulfill the literal, racial, nationalistic covenant promises that He made with Abraham. And because of the multiplicity of seed God promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He doesn’t need to replace Israel with the church either. But present day preachers insist that God will fulfill His covenant promises in the group referred to in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 as “the synagogue of Satan” This is a tragic deception. You can try to make a distinction between the Christ rejecting Jewish leadership of the first century and the Christ rejecting Jewish masses of subsequent generations and centuries but the true, biological Israelites have long since responded to the Gospel as they developed into the many nations promised to Abraham. The present development in the Middle East is preparation for the fulfillment of Luke 19:27.
I do not understand Dr. du Nard’s Point #1. Matthew 15:24 (KJV) actually says, “But he answered and said, ‘I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of Israel.'” Doesn’t the word ‘but’ in Jesus’ answer make Dr. du Nard’s point completely invalid?
It’s been awhile since I’ve been back here. That was a typo on my part. I did not intend to omit the “but.” It remains true in a national sense that Christ is not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Perhaps now the remainder of my post will make sense.
One of the main points that is not considered in this teaching is the fact that Israel, has become divided into two(2) groups: The House of Israel and the House of Judah. Both groups were conquered by other nations and exiled from the land of Israel. The House of Israel was taken captive by the Assyrians and exiled from the land of Israel (2 Kings 15:17) and never fully came back.
The House of Judah was also conquered by the Babylonians (1 Chronicles 9:1), and exiled out of the land of Israel to Babylon, but they did come back. The house of Israel remained in the Land of Israel and was still there when the Jesus came on the scene.
The House of Israel is known as the lost 10 tribes. Biblically, they are also know as the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.