The term ‘replacement theology’ (or ‘supercessionism’) has often been thrown around as a ‘boo’ term without careful  thought being given to its meaning or to the identity of its proponents.

I was interested, then, to read an article by Michael J. Vlach which gives some attention to both definition and examples.  Vlach draws on the thoughts of friends as well as of critics of ‘supercessionism’.

‘Several theologians have offered definitions of “supersessionism” or “replacement theology.” According to Walter C. Kaiser, “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.”

‘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 Old Testament promises to Israel.”

‘Richard Kendall 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.”

‘Herman 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.”

‘These definitions from Kaiser, Diprose, Soulen, and Ridderbos appear consistent with the statements of those who explicitly declare that the church is the replacement of Israel. Bruce K. Waltke, for instance, declares that the New Testament teaches the “hard fact that national Israel and its law have been permanently replaced by the church and the New Covenant.” According to Hans K. LaRondelle, the New Testament 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.”  LaRondelle believes this “people” is the church who replaces “the Christ-rejecting nation.” Loraine 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).”

‘When comparing the definitions of Kaiser, Diprose, Soulen, and Ridderbos with the statements of those who openly promote a replacement view, it appears that supersessionism is 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.

‘Supersessionism, then, in the context of Israel and the church, is the view that the New Testament 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 that is distinct in any way from the Christian church.’

I would like to return to the quotations from Waltke, LaRondelle and Boettner.

I’m going to exclude LaRondelle from my discussion, because, I cannot regard him, as a Seventh Day Adventist, as a spokesman for mainstream evangelicalism.

Turning to Waltke, here’s a slightly fuller version of the quote:

‘As the obverse side of the NT coin bears the hard imprint that no clear passage teaches the restoration of national Israel, its reverse side is imprinted with the hard fact that national Israel and its law have been permanently replaced by the church and the New Covenant.’

Of Vlach’s three examples, it is Loraine Boettner who has given the fullest account of the idea that the church has ‘replaced’ Israel in the purposes of God.  Vlach’s quote is taken from The Millennium, which surveys three contrasting understandings of its theme: amillennianism, premillennialism and postmillenialism.  As the quote shows, Boettner is emphatic that as a people, as a nation, as an ethnic entity, Israel is no longer the recipient of the divine promises (any more, we might say, than are any other people group, such as the Portugese, or the Chinese).  The gospel addresses Jews and Gentiles equally, and all who believe collectively constitute the new people of God, the new Israel.

Boettner begins as indicated above:

‘It may seem harsh to say that, “God is through 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).’

So (continues Boettner):

‘For individual Jews, yes, the way is open as it has always been. Nothing has been taken from them. No impediment has been placed in their way. Many have become true Christians. These are the “natural branches” who again are “grafted into their own olive tree” (Rom. 11:24). They are the “remnant” of fleshly Israel that is to be saved (Rom. 9:27). And it is these individuals, not Israel in a national capacity, who are to undergo conversion. It was these that Paul had in mind when he wrote: “Now if their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness? . . . For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?” (Rom. 11:12, 15)…’

The Old Covenant has been fulfilled and has passed away:

‘With the establishment of the New Covenant a new principle was involved and a new method of procedure was established with everything dependent on Christ, of whom it was said that He should be, “A light for revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of his people Israel” (Luke 2:32). Would that the Jews could see that Christ is the glory of His people Israel, that they might turn to Him in whole-hearted trust and obedience!’

‘This does not mean, of course, that the Jews will never go back to Palestine—as indeed some of them have already
established the nation of Israel.’  But it means that this is happening apart from any covenanted purpose and outside any prophesy of Scripture.

See also

Walter C. Kaiser, An Assessment of ‘Replacement Theology’ Mishkan 21 (1994):9.  Online.