Not Abolished: God's Unbroken Promises to Israel in the New Testament

In a previous article, we compiled verses from the Old Testament on God's gift of the land to Israel. Catholic and Christian supersessionists, both past and present, have traditionally dismissed such verses as no longer relevant because they were "fulfilled" in the New Testament — but their understanding of "fulfilled" is almost indistinguishable from "abolished." On this reading, the coming of Christ effectively cancelled God's particular covenant with the Jewish people, rendering his promises to Israel null and void.

Yet this view sits uneasily with the New Testament itself. The authors of the NT were not writing to replace the promises of the Hebrew Scriptures but to affirm their continuity. The infancy narratives of Luke invoke the covenant with Abraham explicitly as the framework within which the coming of Christ is to be understood. Jesus himself declares in the Sermon on the Mount that he has come not to abolish the Law and the prophets but to fulfil them, and that not one letter will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. The Acts of the Apostles preserves a striking moment in which the risen Christ neither rebukes nor corrects his disciples' expectation of a future restoration of Israel. St. Paul devotes three chapters of his letter to the Romans (chapters 9–11) to arguing — passionately and at length — that God has not rejected his people Israel, and that his covenant with them remains in force. And the letter to the Hebrews grounds the irrevocability of God's oath to Abraham in the very nature of God himself. 

The following verses from the New Testament affirm that God's covenant and promises to Israel remain intact — not cancelled, not spiritualised away, but living and enduring, "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29).

The Gospels

The four Gospels are addressed primarily to Jewish readers and are saturated with the assumption that Israel's story continues. Several passages bear directly on the question of God's ongoing faithfulness to his people.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (Matt 5:17–18)

This is the most direct statement in the NT on the permanence of Scripture's promises. Jesus does not merely preserve the moral law — he affirms the entire body of the Law and the Prophets, which includes all of God's covenant commitments to Israel. Heaven and earth have not yet passed away.

Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matt 10:6)

Jesus' instructions to the twelve at their first sending explicitly prioritise Israel. The phrase "lost sheep of the house of Israel" is covenantal language: these are God's own people, not abandoned but sought.

I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matt 15:24)

Jesus reaffirms this to the Canaanite woman, describing his earthly mission in unambiguous terms. The universal scope of salvation does not erase Israel's priority in the divine economy.

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end. (Luke 1:32–33)

The angel's announcement to Mary frames the coming of Christ explicitly within the covenant with David and the house of Jacob. The kingdom promised here is not merely spiritual — it is rooted in Israel's national and dynastic history, and it is declared to be without end.

He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever. (Luke 1:54–55)

Mary's Magnificat interprets the incarnation as an act of divine faithfulness to the covenant with Abraham — a covenant made not with the Church but with Israel and its physical descendants.

...to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham... (Luke 1:72–73)

Zechariah's canticle makes the same point: the coming of the Messiah is the fulfilment of a sworn oath to Abraham. God is keeping a promise he made to a specific people.

Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him... Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel. (Luke 2:25–32)

Simeon's canticle is careful to distinguish between what Christ means for the Gentiles (revelation) and what he means for Israel (glory). The salvation of the nations does not replace Israel's own covenantal glory — it is a parallel work.

You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. (John 4:22)

Spoken to a Samaritan woman, this is one of the NT's most direct affirmations of Israel's unique salvific role. Jesus does not say salvation has now passed to the Church; he affirms that it originates from and through Israel.

Acts of the Apostles

Acts records the earliest preaching of the Church, in which Israel's future restoration remains very much part of the apostolic horizon.

So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority." (Acts 1:6–7)

The disciples' question is often cited as evidence of a naive misunderstanding that Jesus corrects. But he does not correct the premise; he redirects only the question of timing, which he says is the Father's alone to determine. The expectation of a future restoration of Israel is thus left intact.

Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring (apokatastasis) all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. (Acts 3:19–21)

Peter's sermon in the temple portico points to a future restoration that awaits Christ's return — but the Greek word he uses is significant. Apokatastasis is the very word used in the Septuagint, the early Church's Greek Old Testament, for the future return of the Jewish people from exile to the land of Israel: "I will bring them back [apokatastēsō] to their own land that I gave to their fathers" (Jer 16:15); "I will restore Israel [apokatastēsō] to his pasture" (Jer 50:19); "I will return [apokatastēsō] them to their homes, declares the Lord" (Hos 11:11). Peter's choice of this word in a Jerusalem sermon to Jewish listeners was not accidental — it carried the full freight of the prophetic promise of national restoration to the land.

And Stephen said: Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia... and said to him, "Go out from your land and from your kindred and go into the land that I will show you"... Yet he gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot's length, but promised to give it to him as a possession and to his offspring after him, though he had no child. (Acts 7:2–5)

Stephen's speech is one of the most important NT recapitulations of the land promise. He explicitly notes that God promised the land to Abraham "as a possession and to his offspring after him" — and that this promise remained unfulfilled in Abraham's own lifetime, implying it still awaits complete fulfilment.

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus. (Acts 13:32–33)

Paul's synagogue sermon in Antioch frames the resurrection explicitly as the fulfilment of God's promises to the fathers of Israel — not a replacement of those promises, but their confirmation.

And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. (Acts 26:6–7)

Paul identifies the hope of the twelve tribes of Israel — a thoroughly national and covenantal hope — as the very substance of his own preaching. He does not distance himself from Israel's expectation; he embodies it.

It is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain. (Acts 28:20)

Paul's final summary of his mission identifies it entirely with Israel's hope. Not the Church's hope, not a spiritualised hope — the hope of Israel, as such.

St. Paul

No NT author addresses the question of God's faithfulness to Israel more directly or at greater length than Paul. Romans 9–11 is a sustained theological argument that God has not abandoned his people — and that their future full inclusion will be the greatest event in salvation history.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (Rom 1:16)

The gospel does not erase the distinction between Jew and Gentile — it operates through it. "To the Jew first" is not merely historical sequence; it reflects Israel's ongoing covenantal priority in the divine economy.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar. (Rom 3:1–4)

Paul's most direct rebuttal of the argument that Israel's failures void the covenant. God's faithfulness is not conditional on Israel's performance — it is grounded in his own character.

They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. (Rom 9:4–5)

Paul lists eight permanent privileges of Israel — in the present tense. He does not say these belonged to Israel. The covenants and promises remain Israel's even after the coming of Christ.

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. (Rom 11:1–2)

The question is put explicitly and answered with Paul's strongest negative: mē genoito — "by no means," "absolutely not," "God forbid." The rejection of Israel is, for Paul, a theological impossibility.

So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! (Rom 11:11–12)

Paul's argument moves in three stages: Israel's stumbling is not final (vv. 11–12); Israel's future acceptance will mean something even greater than their rejection (v. 15); and a partial hardening has come upon Israel only until the full number of the Gentiles has come in (vv. 25–27). The logic depends entirely on a real, future restoration of Israel — not a merely spiritual or ecclesial reinterpretation of it.

For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? (Rom 11:15)

Israel's future acceptance is Paul's climactic hope. He describes it as "life from the dead" — not merely a historical event but a cosmic transformation. This expectation makes no sense on a supersessionist reading.

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." (Rom 11:25–27)

Paul explicitly calls this a "mystery" — a divine plan hidden until now. The hardening of Israel is partial and temporary, not total and permanent. When the full number of the Gentiles has come in, all Israel will be saved. Paul seals this with two prophetic quotations — and the first is striking: the Deliverer will come from Zion. Not from the Church, not from Rome, not from a spiritualised heavenly realm — but from Zion, the very city God chose as his eternal dwelling and promised to restore to his people. Paul's eschatological hope is inseparable from the geography of the covenant.

As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. (Rom 11:28–29)

The anchor verse of the entire compilation. Israel's election — grounded in the promises to the patriarchs — is not revoked by their rejection of the gospel. God does not take back what he has given or withdraw the call he has issued.

For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs. (Rom 15:8)

The incarnation itself is here interpreted as an act of fidelity to the promises made to Israel's ancestors. Christ did not come to replace those promises but to confirm them.

This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. (Gal 3:17)

Paul's most explicit logical rebuttal of supersessionism: a later covenant cannot cancel an earlier unconditional promise. If the Mosaic Law — given 430 years after Abraham — cannot void the Abrahamic covenant, neither can the new covenant in Christ.

Hebrews

The letter to the Hebrews, addressed to Jewish Christians, grounds the irrevocability of God's promises in the very character of God himself.

For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, "Surely I will bless you and multiply you." And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise... So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath. (Heb 6:13–17)

God swore by himself — the strongest possible guarantee — because there is nothing greater by which he could swear. The promise to Abraham is secured not by human faithfulness but by the immutability of God's own purpose.

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. (Heb 11:8–10)

Abraham sojourned in the land of promise as a foreigner — the land was promised but not yet fully possessed. The earthly and heavenly dimensions of the promise are held together here, not collapsed into each other.

These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. (Heb 11:13)

The author of Hebrews interprets the patriarchs' unfulfilled hope as pointing toward a heavenly homeland — "a better country, that is, a heavenly one" (v. 16). This is not a cancellation of the promises but an elevation of them: the earthly land of Canaan was always a sign pointing beyond itself. Significantly, this heavenly fulfilment does not exclude an earthly dimension — the heavenly Jerusalem crowns rather than abolishes the earthly one. What the verse firmly rules out is any claim that the promises were already fully and finally satisfied in the Old Testament period.

And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect. (Heb 11:39–40)

The patriarchs await a fulfilment that has not yet come — and that awaited fulfilment includes us. The promises are not closed; they are still unfolding in our time.

Summary Table

The following table lists all the verses discussed above for convenient reference.

Dr. André Villeneuve is Associate Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Languages at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan. He obtained his Ph.D. from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and his Licentiate in Sacred Scripture from the Pontifical Biblical Commission in Rome. He is the author of Divine Marriage from Eden to the End of Days (2021), and Sirach (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture). He is the director of Catholics for Israel, and on the Board of Directors of the Association of Hebrew Catholics.

• Matt Fradd's 'Catechism' on Christian Zionism: A Point-by-Point Response
• Carrie Prejean Boller and “Catholics for Catholics” Do Not Speak for Catholics on Zionism
• The Church Fathers and the Restoration of Israel
• Catholics, Zion, and God's Irrevocable Covenant
• God Dwells in Zion: Zionism across Scripture
• Load more articles from this author