Much has been said about John Hagee's Zionism today. In light of that I will make mention of the following:
I read a decent, if rather too short, article today, namely Bruce Longenecker's, "On Israel's God and God's Israel: Assessing Supersessionism in Paul", JTS 58, no. 1 (2007): 26–44.
From the abstract: 'Does the church replace ethnic Israel in Paul's thinking (as so many have imagined throughout the history of the Christian church)? Or is ethnic Israel on a separate salvific path by way of her covenant election (as many are now currently advocating)? Or are there other dimensions to be considered?'
Longenecker arguably rightly rejects, in critical dialogue with Stanley Stowers' A Rereading of Romans, the Sonderweg option, that Israel has a way of salvation independent of Christ. Of course, on certain moral grounds one can see why such a view obtained a foothold in NT scholarship, but I still do not understand how it ever became so popular in the name of the Apostle Paul. Longenecker concludes that Paul's theology 'included a type of supersessionism over against non-Christian forms of Judaism' (34). Right. However, Longenecker is very careful to formulate his position in contradistinction to the 'replacement virus' (38). Indeed! The replacement view is rightly identified as a virus, a position the Apostle Paul would of course never have accepted. He asks some thought provoking questions towards the end of the article. In particular, these stuck with me:
'I wonder whether we can afford to ignore the handful of Jewish interpreters who have seen Paul's supersessionism as something of a laudable development in one way or another within the context of first-century Judaism/Judaisms? Is there scope for seeing Paul's supersessionism as in some sense a positive development in some of its goals—regardless of the veracity of its truth claims?' (41)