A Quick Comment on an Objection to the Land Promise to Israel

Supersessionists (aka Replacement Theology) often claim that while the OT has many land promises, the NT does not have any; therefore, they generally argue, the land promise is no longer in effect, or it is absorbed into the Church or Jesus.

Notwithstanding that there are some land promises in the NT, I believe that the dearth of the land promise in the NT actually SUPPORTS the unconditional land promise to Israel.

How so? For two reasons:

i. If the land promises were some “type,” for example, then why don't we see fulfillment-type language concerning the land promise in the NT regarding the church or Jesus?

ii. The main theological material in the NT is about God EXTENDING his grace to the Gentiles. That is the main topic in the NT. So the general silence in the NT on the land promise to Israel TURNS THE TABLE on the supersessionist.