As the name suggests, the Letter to the Hebrews is addressed to Jewish Christian believers.  Their continuity with historical Israel is apparent from their description as

• ‘The people (of God)’ (Heb 2:17; 4:9; 8:10; 10:30; 11:25; 13:12),
• ‘Children (of God)’ (Heb 2:10; 12:5–7),
• ‘The saints’ (Heb 6:10; 13:24),
• ‘God’s household’ (Heb 3:6).

But, at the same time, discontinuity is suggested when the Christian gospel is described as bringing with it ‘better hope’ (Heb 7:19), ‘better covenant’ (Heb 7:22; 8:6), ‘better promises’ (Heb 8:6), ‘better sacrifices’ and ‘the greater and more perfect tabernacle’ (Heb 9:11 margin).

Morevoer, the wrtier claims that ‘the law has only a shadow of the good things to come’, and the new covenant renders the old ‘obsolete’ (Heb 10:1; 8:13).

Should we conclude that the church of Christ has ‘superceded’ the Jews as the people of God?  If Israel has failed in her obligations under the old covenant, and has rejected Jesus as Messiah, has Christianity replaced Judaism?

Such thinking goes back at least as far as the Epistle of Barnabas (early second century?), which asserts that

‘Israel forfeited their unique relationship with God through idolatry (Barnabas 4:8), disobedience (8:7; 9:4; 14:1–4) and ignorance of the law’s true (spiritual) meaning (10:2, 9). Christians are the true heirs of God’s covenant (4:8; 6:19; 13:6; 14:4–5).’

Such a belief has been used to justify oppression of Jewish people.  However, those who adhere to supercessionism are not necessarily anti-Semitic in thought or behaviour.

Does the Letter to the Hebrews provide support for replacement theology?

The author certainly affirms than in Jesus God has ushered in a new era which replaces the old.  The law and sacrifices of the old were steps along the way, not God’s final provision for his people.  His argument depends on quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures themselves, in which God promises to establish a new covenant with his people (Heb 8:8–13, citing Jer. 31:31–34; see also Heb. 10:16–17).

But the author does not portray Abraham, Moses, Joshua and other OT sains in a negative light.  But Jesus has brought what is ‘better’ (Heb 7:19, 22; 8:9; 9:23).  They themselves knew by faith that God was planning this ‘better’ future (Heb 11:16, 35).

This pattern is not one of simple replacement, then, but one of fulfilment.

‘The new covenant does not replace the old as a new car might replace an old one. It is more like a permanent job succeeding a period of probation, or a marriage following an engagement.’

It is signifiant that the author writes from within a solely Jewish framework.  There being no mention of Gentiles, it is no part of his argument to say that the Jewish people have been replaced by the Gentile church.

‘His message is that the story of Israel is not complete without the Messiah, that individual Jews find completion (‘perfection’) in him, and that it is therefore not an option for his Jewish-Christian readers to return to “Judaism before Christ”…His disagreement with his fellow-Jews was not about whether Christianity was superior to Judaism, but about whether Jesus was in fact the Messiah.’

On the one hand, we recognise that Christianity owes its birth to Judaism.  On the other hand, it is fundamental to our faith that Jesus is the decisive and final revelation of God for all human beings.  We may not say, as some do,that God has two covenants – one for the Jews and another for Gentiles.  As Paul will insist, there is one gospel for all, and all who receive it constintue one people – God’s new society.

Based on Stephen Travis, in  Exploring the New Testament, Vol 2, pp258-260.