Well-reasoned and argued. The growing anti-Judaism in some quarters is horrifying. God keeps His promises to us and to Israel; as astounding as His crucified Son Who prayed: "Father forgive them." Why have we focused on "His blood be upon us and our children" to the exclusion of "Father, forgive them..."?
Very insightful and helpful, Sergio. Thanks. Here's an issue I've just been thinking about, maybe you can help with this too. Studying Hebrews again. The writer makes such a big deal about Christ's priesthood resembling Melchezidek. Christ did not step into the Aaronic priesthood. What I'm trying to put together is Christ's priesthood, with the covenant promise in Jer. 31:33. So little in the NT overtly refers to the New Covenant, but I'm thinking it must also relate to the change in priesthood. Any thoughts? God bless. So many things the "church" has never explored, huh?
Sorry it took me so long to respond, that is a beautiful question, DE — and you’re right, the writer of Hebrews is drawing a straight line between Jeremiah’s promise and Melchizedek’s priesthood.
Jeremiah 31:33 speaks of a covenant written on hearts instead of tablets — a law internalized rather than externalized. That shift required a priesthood that operated from within the same place: not by genealogy, but by indwelling.
That’s why Messiah couldn’t serve under Aaron — the Levitical system managed sin; the Melchizedek order transforms it. One mediated through ritual blood; the other mediates through eternal life (Heb. 7:16).
So the “change in priesthood” isn’t just administrative — it’s ontological. The covenant moved from stone to spirit, and the priesthood moved from bloodline to resurrection.
You’re exactly right — the Church has rarely explored this depth. But it’s all there in the text: the same God, the same Torah, but now written on living hearts instead of scrolls.
Wow, Sergio. You are a deep understander! Thanks for writing this. I parse every word and sentence in my studies and having read the Bible dozens of times, I’m usually able to piece things together. This one stumped me. But gratefully, the Lord put you right there. And, as usual, the discernment is obvious. What do human always revert to? Externals, bureaucratizing everything. But Christ shines His light deep into our souls. People settle for fixes. Only Christ gives new life. Odd how that scares people off. They’d rather have a superficial fix. Thanks again, brother.
I’ve never been a Calvinist, so I may not be understanding this correctly, but what’s the difference between supercessionism and believing that everyone-Jew and Gentile- must believe in Jesus to be saved? Surely Jews aren’t saved by ethnicity, but rather faith in Christ? Or do you believe that Jews who reject the Messiah are still saved?
Sergio- in your view, does a secular Jew (who rejects Jesus but is a citizen of the modern state of Israel) still have a place in God’s kingdom and if so, in what way? Are they saved? Are they in some way a prophetic witness without being saved?
A secular Jew isn’t “saved” by ethnicity or citizenship — salvation comes only through Yeshua. But Paul makes it clear in Romans 11 that God has not rejected His people. Israel’s blindness is partial and temporary; they remain beloved for the fathers’ sake (v. 28).
Their continued existence — after centuries of dispersion and persecution — is itself prophetic. It proves that God’s covenant is still active and His word unbroken.
So no, they’re not saved without Messiah, but yes — they still stand as a living witness that God keeps His promises even when man forgets them. That’s the mystery Paul called “the fullness of the nations.”
That’s an interesting point- I hadn’t considered that the Jews’ continued existence is still a prophetic witness, but it makes sense. What do you think Paul means when he says that after a temporary hardening all Israel will be saved? Will there be a sort of eschatological miracle wherein even all / most secular Jews will ultimately believe in Jesus and be saved? If not, will those who persist in unbelief be lost/ rejected by God, their ancestry notwithstanding? And if the latter happens and most ethnic Jews are lost, would that therefore invalidate God’s love for their ancestors?
Another great question, Ada — and it’s one most people read through a Western lens instead of a Hebraic one.
In Romans 11:26, when Paul says “all Israel will be saved,” he’s quoting Isaiah 59:20 from the Hebrew Scriptures: “The Redeemer will come to Zion — to those in Jacob who turn from transgression.”
In Hebrew, “saved” (יֵשַׁע / yashaʿ) doesn’t mean “go to heaven.” It means to be made whole, delivered, restored. Paul isn’t predicting blanket salvation; he’s pointing to national restoration through repentance.
“All Israel” refers to the covenant people being made whole when the Redeemer turns them back to faithfulness. God’s love for the patriarchs still stands — but participation in that wholeness requires turning from rebellion.
I’ll unpack this mistranslation in an upcoming post — it’s one of the biggest things Western teachers miss because they read Paul through Greek grammar instead of Hebrew thought.
By national restoration and wholeness, do you mean simply the continued existence of the Jewish people (regardless if they are saved), or do you mean the Jews entering the kingdom of God when Jesus returns? If the latter, that is still contingent on their putting their faith in Jesus, correct? Thanks for your time!
When I speak of national restoration and wholeness, I’m referring to what Scripture calls God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel as a people — their continued existence, preservation, and ultimate reconciliation.
That’s what Paul means in Romans 11:26 when he says “all Israel will be saved” — not automatic redemption, but a collective healing (the Hebrew sense of “saved” being made whole).
Yes, salvation in the eternal sense is always through faith in Yeshua. But Israel’s ongoing role in God’s plan is evidence of His unbroken promise — not their perfection, but His perseverance.
He keeps them, not because they all believe, but because He said He would. And that covenant endurance itself is part of their witness to the world.
That seems to be the problem. Faith has always been necessary for salvation. We are told that Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Paul said that they are not Jews who are Jews outwardly ie physical descendants but they are Jews who are Jews inwardly by circumcision of the heart. The root that Paul refers to is Christ not the OT Israel. The modern national state of Israel is not to be confused with the Israel of God which is the community of all believers in Christ.
Faith has indeed always been necessary for righteousness — that part is true. Genesis 15:6 says, “And he believed the LORD, and He counted it to him as righteousness.” But faith in Scripture has never been divorced from covenant obedience (Genesis 26:4–5; James 2:21–24).
Paul’s statement in Romans 2:28–29 about being a “Jew inwardly” doesn’t redefine or replace Israel — it exposes hypocrisy among those who were circumcised in flesh but disobedient in heart. It’s about integrity within the covenant, not the creation of a new, separate “spiritual Israel.”
In Romans 11, Paul warns Gentiles not to boast against the natural branches — because the root supports them, not the other way around. The “root” is not Christ instead of Israel; rather, the root is the covenantal faithfulness of God through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, fulfilled in Messiah (Romans 11:16–18). Yeshua is the promised Seed (Galatians 3:16), but He does not erase Israel — He fulfills the covenant made with Israel.
The “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 refers to the faithful remnant — Jews and Gentiles grafted together in Messiah — not a replacement of Israel by the Church or a denial of national Israel’s prophetic role. The modern state of Israel is a political entity, yes, but God’s promises concerning the people and land remain intact (Romans 9:4–5; Jeremiah 31:35–37).
That being said
Salvation has always been through faith expressed in covenant loyalty.
The “root” is God’s covenant through the patriarchs, fulfilled in Messiah — not a new entity replacing Israel.
The “Israel of God” is the redeemed remnant within Israel and the grafted-in Gentiles — one olive tree, not two, and not one that erases the other.
Salvation does not come through works. Covenant theology has been corrupted by this thinking which arose once more by the proponents of “Federal Vision”. Salvation is a gift through Gods grace. Ephesians 2 speaks of the believer being Christs workmanship, created for good works which God prepared beforehand.
Christ Himself said that He is the Root and the offspring of David - Rev 22:16. Not Abraham or the prophets.
Salvation has never been earned by works — but it’s always been proven by obedience. That’s not “Federal Vision,” that’s the consistent testimony of Scripture.
Abraham wasn’t saved by his deeds, but his faith was made complete by them (James 2:21–22). That’s covenant faith — belief that produces action. Grace isn’t a loophole to ignore God’s commands; it’s the power to walk in them.
You’re right — Yeshua is the Root and the offspring of David (Revelation 22:16). But don’t miss what that means: He’s the fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and confirmed through the prophets. The Root doesn’t replace the tree; He gives it life.
Ephesians 2 is the same story — saved by grace through faith, then created for good works that God prepared beforehand.
Well put. I’ve been noting with some dismay a growing current of supersessionism in online forums, particularly among the Xian nationalist set. (I refuse to dignify that persuasion by attaching Christ’s name to it, since it is neither Christian nor in any true sense nationalistic). The logical outworking of such substitution is painfully obvious, as you have clearly pointed out, and the attempt to substitute a theocratic America for Israel as God’s chosen nation is not only wrongheaded but blasphemous.
Beautifully said! Very well thought out! Thank you!
My soul agrees with every word of this...
Well-reasoned and argued. The growing anti-Judaism in some quarters is horrifying. God keeps His promises to us and to Israel; as astounding as His crucified Son Who prayed: "Father forgive them." Why have we focused on "His blood be upon us and our children" to the exclusion of "Father, forgive them..."?
Very insightful and helpful, Sergio. Thanks. Here's an issue I've just been thinking about, maybe you can help with this too. Studying Hebrews again. The writer makes such a big deal about Christ's priesthood resembling Melchezidek. Christ did not step into the Aaronic priesthood. What I'm trying to put together is Christ's priesthood, with the covenant promise in Jer. 31:33. So little in the NT overtly refers to the New Covenant, but I'm thinking it must also relate to the change in priesthood. Any thoughts? God bless. So many things the "church" has never explored, huh?
Sorry it took me so long to respond, that is a beautiful question, DE — and you’re right, the writer of Hebrews is drawing a straight line between Jeremiah’s promise and Melchizedek’s priesthood.
Jeremiah 31:33 speaks of a covenant written on hearts instead of tablets — a law internalized rather than externalized. That shift required a priesthood that operated from within the same place: not by genealogy, but by indwelling.
That’s why Messiah couldn’t serve under Aaron — the Levitical system managed sin; the Melchizedek order transforms it. One mediated through ritual blood; the other mediates through eternal life (Heb. 7:16).
So the “change in priesthood” isn’t just administrative — it’s ontological. The covenant moved from stone to spirit, and the priesthood moved from bloodline to resurrection.
You’re exactly right — the Church has rarely explored this depth. But it’s all there in the text: the same God, the same Torah, but now written on living hearts instead of scrolls.
Wow, Sergio. You are a deep understander! Thanks for writing this. I parse every word and sentence in my studies and having read the Bible dozens of times, I’m usually able to piece things together. This one stumped me. But gratefully, the Lord put you right there. And, as usual, the discernment is obvious. What do human always revert to? Externals, bureaucratizing everything. But Christ shines His light deep into our souls. People settle for fixes. Only Christ gives new life. Odd how that scares people off. They’d rather have a superficial fix. Thanks again, brother.
Amen!
I’ve never been a Calvinist, so I may not be understanding this correctly, but what’s the difference between supercessionism and believing that everyone-Jew and Gentile- must believe in Jesus to be saved? Surely Jews aren’t saved by ethnicity, but rather faith in Christ? Or do you believe that Jews who reject the Messiah are still saved?
Sergio- in your view, does a secular Jew (who rejects Jesus but is a citizen of the modern state of Israel) still have a place in God’s kingdom and if so, in what way? Are they saved? Are they in some way a prophetic witness without being saved?
Good question, Ada.
A secular Jew isn’t “saved” by ethnicity or citizenship — salvation comes only through Yeshua. But Paul makes it clear in Romans 11 that God has not rejected His people. Israel’s blindness is partial and temporary; they remain beloved for the fathers’ sake (v. 28).
Their continued existence — after centuries of dispersion and persecution — is itself prophetic. It proves that God’s covenant is still active and His word unbroken.
So no, they’re not saved without Messiah, but yes — they still stand as a living witness that God keeps His promises even when man forgets them. That’s the mystery Paul called “the fullness of the nations.”
That’s an interesting point- I hadn’t considered that the Jews’ continued existence is still a prophetic witness, but it makes sense. What do you think Paul means when he says that after a temporary hardening all Israel will be saved? Will there be a sort of eschatological miracle wherein even all / most secular Jews will ultimately believe in Jesus and be saved? If not, will those who persist in unbelief be lost/ rejected by God, their ancestry notwithstanding? And if the latter happens and most ethnic Jews are lost, would that therefore invalidate God’s love for their ancestors?
Another great question, Ada — and it’s one most people read through a Western lens instead of a Hebraic one.
In Romans 11:26, when Paul says “all Israel will be saved,” he’s quoting Isaiah 59:20 from the Hebrew Scriptures: “The Redeemer will come to Zion — to those in Jacob who turn from transgression.”
In Hebrew, “saved” (יֵשַׁע / yashaʿ) doesn’t mean “go to heaven.” It means to be made whole, delivered, restored. Paul isn’t predicting blanket salvation; he’s pointing to national restoration through repentance.
“All Israel” refers to the covenant people being made whole when the Redeemer turns them back to faithfulness. God’s love for the patriarchs still stands — but participation in that wholeness requires turning from rebellion.
I’ll unpack this mistranslation in an upcoming post — it’s one of the biggest things Western teachers miss because they read Paul through Greek grammar instead of Hebrew thought.
By national restoration and wholeness, do you mean simply the continued existence of the Jewish people (regardless if they are saved), or do you mean the Jews entering the kingdom of God when Jesus returns? If the latter, that is still contingent on their putting their faith in Jesus, correct? Thanks for your time!
When I speak of national restoration and wholeness, I’m referring to what Scripture calls God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel as a people — their continued existence, preservation, and ultimate reconciliation.
That’s what Paul means in Romans 11:26 when he says “all Israel will be saved” — not automatic redemption, but a collective healing (the Hebrew sense of “saved” being made whole).
Yes, salvation in the eternal sense is always through faith in Yeshua. But Israel’s ongoing role in God’s plan is evidence of His unbroken promise — not their perfection, but His perseverance.
He keeps them, not because they all believe, but because He said He would. And that covenant endurance itself is part of their witness to the world.
That seems to be the problem. Faith has always been necessary for salvation. We are told that Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Paul said that they are not Jews who are Jews outwardly ie physical descendants but they are Jews who are Jews inwardly by circumcision of the heart. The root that Paul refers to is Christ not the OT Israel. The modern national state of Israel is not to be confused with the Israel of God which is the community of all believers in Christ.
Close-
Faith has indeed always been necessary for righteousness — that part is true. Genesis 15:6 says, “And he believed the LORD, and He counted it to him as righteousness.” But faith in Scripture has never been divorced from covenant obedience (Genesis 26:4–5; James 2:21–24).
Paul’s statement in Romans 2:28–29 about being a “Jew inwardly” doesn’t redefine or replace Israel — it exposes hypocrisy among those who were circumcised in flesh but disobedient in heart. It’s about integrity within the covenant, not the creation of a new, separate “spiritual Israel.”
In Romans 11, Paul warns Gentiles not to boast against the natural branches — because the root supports them, not the other way around. The “root” is not Christ instead of Israel; rather, the root is the covenantal faithfulness of God through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, fulfilled in Messiah (Romans 11:16–18). Yeshua is the promised Seed (Galatians 3:16), but He does not erase Israel — He fulfills the covenant made with Israel.
The “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 refers to the faithful remnant — Jews and Gentiles grafted together in Messiah — not a replacement of Israel by the Church or a denial of national Israel’s prophetic role. The modern state of Israel is a political entity, yes, but God’s promises concerning the people and land remain intact (Romans 9:4–5; Jeremiah 31:35–37).
That being said
Salvation has always been through faith expressed in covenant loyalty.
The “root” is God’s covenant through the patriarchs, fulfilled in Messiah — not a new entity replacing Israel.
The “Israel of God” is the redeemed remnant within Israel and the grafted-in Gentiles — one olive tree, not two, and not one that erases the other.
Salvation does not come through works. Covenant theology has been corrupted by this thinking which arose once more by the proponents of “Federal Vision”. Salvation is a gift through Gods grace. Ephesians 2 speaks of the believer being Christs workmanship, created for good works which God prepared beforehand.
Christ Himself said that He is the Root and the offspring of David - Rev 22:16. Not Abraham or the prophets.
Salvation has never been earned by works — but it’s always been proven by obedience. That’s not “Federal Vision,” that’s the consistent testimony of Scripture.
Abraham wasn’t saved by his deeds, but his faith was made complete by them (James 2:21–22). That’s covenant faith — belief that produces action. Grace isn’t a loophole to ignore God’s commands; it’s the power to walk in them.
You’re right — Yeshua is the Root and the offspring of David (Revelation 22:16). But don’t miss what that means: He’s the fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and confirmed through the prophets. The Root doesn’t replace the tree; He gives it life.
Ephesians 2 is the same story — saved by grace through faith, then created for good works that God prepared beforehand.
Grace is the gift. Obedience is the evidence.
Well put. I’ve been noting with some dismay a growing current of supersessionism in online forums, particularly among the Xian nationalist set. (I refuse to dignify that persuasion by attaching Christ’s name to it, since it is neither Christian nor in any true sense nationalistic). The logical outworking of such substitution is painfully obvious, as you have clearly pointed out, and the attempt to substitute a theocratic America for Israel as God’s chosen nation is not only wrongheaded but blasphemous.
Thank You!