The problem is that supersessionism seems to be built in to the very fabric of the general Christian narrative, or the “standard model” as Soulen labelled it, and it makes it very difficult for many Christians to see how the church can be defined without it. After all, it is through the process of self-identification, of finding a unique Christian identity, that an explicit supersessionist theology emerges during the second century. I remember talking to a Calvinist friend who was astonished to hear that I found supersessionism problematic, as he was not even able to conceive of a Christian theology without it.

And this where my problem lies: even though I’m convinced that explicit supersessionist theology (supersessionism taken as synonymous to replacement theology, i.e. the church has replaced the physical Israel as God’s chosen people) is misguided, I’m also not very convinced by its most powerful alternatives (e.g. two-covenant theology and dispensationalism). I’m guessing (though I’m not sure) that you share my scepticism here. Therefore, I would very much appreciate if you would like to address this issue in some post ahead; how can a non-supersessionist, biblically sound, theology be formulated without one having to compromise with the Christological and soteriological claims of the universal Christian faith.