Has the Church Replaced Israel?

Michael J. Vlach

• Publisher: B&H Academic
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9780805449723
• eBook ISBN: 9781433673139
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

The relationship between Israel and the church continues to be a controversial topic led by this question: Does the church replace, supersede, or fulfill the nation of Israel in God's plan, or will Israel be saved and restored with a unique identity and role?

In Has the Church Replaced Israel?, author Michael J. Vlach evaluates the doctrine of replacement theology (also known as supersessionism) down through history but ultimately argues in favor of the nonsupersessionist position. Thoroughly vetting the most important hermeneutical and theological issues related to the Israel/church relationship, Vlach explains why, "there are compelling scriptural reasons in both testaments to believe in a future salvation and restoration of the nation Israel."

Part 1

Introduction to Supersessionism

Chapter 1

What Is Supersessionism?

As with any theological topic, defining terms is important for being accurate and avoiding misunderstandings. So what is the doctrine of replacement theology or supersessionism? Giving a title to the view that the church replaces, supersedes, or fulfills Israel as the people of God has not been without controversy or debate. As Woudstra observes, "The question whether it is more proper to speak of a replacement of the Jews by the Christian church or of an extension (continuation) of the OT people of God into that of the NT church is variously answered."¹

A common designation used in scholarly literature to identify this position is supersessionism. The term supersessionism comes from two Latin words: super (on or upon) and sedere (to sit). It carries the idea of one person sitting on another's chair, displacing the latter.² The title "replacement theology" is often viewed as a synonym for supersessionism.³ This title appears to be the most common designation in popular literature, at least for now.

The title replacement theology is not well received by some. Several have noted that they would rather be known as "fulfillment theologians" or some other title that is more positive. Lehrer, for example, shies away from the term replacement theology since he does not see the church replacing the nation Israel. He says, "Instead I would rather use the term 'fulfillment theology.' Israel was simply a picture of the true people of God, which the church fulfills."⁴ Unfortunately, for those who desire a different label, the titles replacement theology and supersessionism are better established and do not appear to be going away any time soon. Plus, many theologians who espouse a supersessionist view have used the terms replace and replacement in regard to Israel and the church. It is not the case that nonsupersessionists⁵ have imposed the title replacement theology against the will of supersessionists unfairly. Those who espouse the supersessionist view are partly responsible for this title since they often have used replacement or similar terminology themselves.

I have no trouble with the designation replacement theology because with the supersessionist view there is a taking away or transferring of what national Israel was promised to another group. One can use fulfillment terminology as some prefer, but in the end the result is the same—promises and covenants that were made with the nation Israel are no longer the possession of national Israel. Israel's promises and covenants now allegedly belong to another group that is not national Israel. This other group may be called the "new" or "true" Israel, but this does not change the fact that what was promised to one people group—national Israel—is now the possession of another group to the exclusion of national Israel.⁶ Thus, the title replacement theology appears appropriate. Those who say, "I'm not a replacement theologian; I'm a fulfillment theologian" are not making the criticisms of replacement theology moot. Nor does it make the whole discussion of replacement theology irrelevant. Those who approach this issue should not be sidetracked by claims that "replacement theology" does not exist, only "fulfillment theology." In my study, I have found that those who teach that the church is the complete replacement or fulfillment of Israel use the same basic arguments. It is not as though replacement theology comes with its own set of arguments while fulfillment theology has a different compilation of arguments. The position is the same while some call it one thing and others call it another. If all of a sudden the title fulfillment theology became accepted by all, it would not change any of the arguments or points presented in this book.

So how should we handle this issue of terminology? First, we should focus more on the concept than the title. While I often use the titles supersessionism and replacement theology, I am addressing an idea more than trying to further the acceptance of a title. Second, we should respect those who prefer "fulfillment" terminology over "replacement." If I am talking to a person who feels this way, I do not say, "You are not a fulfillment theologian; you are a replacement theologian! Too bad!" That approach is not helpful. Yet the titles replacement theology and supersessionism are well established. I will use mostly these two designations in this work. I prefer the term supersessionism because it can encompass the concepts of "replace" and "fulfill."

Defining Supersessionism

Several theologians have offered definitions of supersessionism or replacement theology. According to Walter C. Kaiser Jr., "Replacement theology . . . declared that the Church, Abraham's spiritual seed, had replaced national Israel in that it had transcended and fulfilled the terms of the covenant given to Israel, which covenant Israel had lost because of disobedience."⁷ Diprose defines replacement theology as the view that "the Church completely and permanently replaced ethnic Israel in the working out of God's plan and as recipient of OT promises to Israel."⁸

Soulen argues that supersessionism is linked with how some view the coming of Jesus Christ: "According to this teaching [supersessionism], God chose the Jewish people after the fall of Adam in order to prepare the world for the coming of Jesus Christ, the Savior. After Christ came, however, the special role of the Jewish people came to an end and its place was taken by the church, the new Israel."⁹ Ridderbos asserts that there is a positive and negative element to the supersessionist view: "On the one hand, in a positive sense it presupposes that the church springs from, is born out of Israel; on the other hand, the church takes the place of Israel as the historical people of God."¹⁰

These definitions from Kaiser, Diprose, Soulen, and Ridderbos appear consistent with statements of those who have explicitly declared that the church is the replacement of Israel. Bruce K. Waltke, for instance, declares that the NT teaches the "hard fact that national Israel and its law have been permanently replaced by the church and the New Covenant."¹¹ According to LaRondelle, the NT affirms that "Israel would no longer be the people of God and would be replaced by a people that would accept the Messiah and His message of the kingdom of God."¹² LaRondelle believes this "people" is the church who replaces "the Christ-rejecting nation."¹³ Boettner, too, writes, "It may seem harsh to say that 'God is done with the Jews.' But the fact of the matter is that He is through with them as a unified national group having anything more to do with the evangelization of the world. That mission has been taken from them and given to the Christian Church (Matt. 21:43)."¹⁴

Supersessionism, therefore, appears to be based on two core beliefs: (1) the nation Israel has somehow completed or forfeited its status as the people of God and will never again possess a unique role or function apart from the church, and (2) the church is now the true Israel that has permanently replaced or superseded national Israel as the people of God. In the context of Israel and the church, supersessionism is the view that the NT Church is the new and/or true Israel that has forever superseded the nation Israel as the people of God. The result is that the church has become the sole inheritor of God's covenant blessings originally promised to national Israel in the OT. This rules out a future restoration of the nation Israel with a unique identity, role, and purpose.¹⁵

Variations within Supersessionism

While all supersessionists affirm that the church has superseded national Israel as the people of God, there are variations within supersessionism. Thus, this is not a one-size-fits-all perspective. Three major forms of supersessionism have been recognized: punitive supersessionism, economic supersessionism, and structural supersessionism.

Punitive Supersessionism

"Punitive" or "retributive" supersessionism emphasizes Israel's disobedience and punishment by God as the reason for its displacement as the people of God. Or in other words, Israel is replaced by the church because the nation acted wickedly and has forfeited the right to be the people of God.

As Fackre explains, this form of supersessionism "holds that the rejection of Christ both eliminates Israel from God's covenant love and provokes divine retribution."¹⁶ With punitive supersessionism, according to Soulen, "God abrogates God's covenant with Israel . . . on account of Israel's rejection of Christ and the gospel."¹⁷ Because the Jews reject Christ, "God in turn angrily rejects and punishes the Jews."¹⁸ In sum, with punitive supersessionism, God has rejected the Jews because of their disobedience and their rejection of Christ.

Belief in punitive supersessionism was common in the patristic era. Hippolytus (c. 205), for example, promoted punitive supersessionism when he declared, "And surely you [the Jews] have been darkened in the eyes of your soul with a darkness utter and everlasting. . . . Furthermore, hear this yet more serious word: 'And their back do you bend always.' This means, in order that they may be slaves to the natio...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part 1
• Chapter 1
• Chapter 2
• Part 2
• Chapter 3
• Chapter 4
• Chapter 5
• Chapter 6
• Chapter 7
• Part 3
• Chapter 8
• Chapter 9
• Chapter 10
• Part 4
• Chapter 11
• Chapter 12
• Chapter 13
• Chapter 14
• Chapter 15
• Chapter 16
• Conclusion
• Appendix
• Bibliography
• Subject Index
• Author Index
• Scripture Index