Archive
Michael Vlach: Has the Church Replaced Israel?
A friend sent me a copy of Vlach’s recently published book, “Has the Church Replaced Israel?” I don’t often have opportunity to read current books, and so I’ve enjoyed reading this one. Vlach’s book is one of only a few that give serious treatment to the scriptural and theological issues of biblical dispensationalism. I’ve read some of his online articles at his website (Theological Studies.org), so it was nice to read this book also. I’ve not completed the book yet, just the first ten chapters, and so the following is from my observations thus far.
Vlach notes the standard objection from those who don’t like to use the term “replace,” and establishes the definition from the fact that, regardless of what term people want to give for their belief, that belief does involve replacing one promise to one people group with another promise to a different group. The well-known amillennialist story of a dad promising his son a set of wheels, so that he expects a car, and instead gets a super-duper sports car, is told here, with the clear point that the illustration is not accurate. In supersessionism, the dad gives the fancy sports car to someone else instead of to his son.
After establishing the definition, several chapters cover church history, from the 1st century to the present, and provide great detail concerning the church-replacement views of various theologians. The basic content here is similar to Barry Horner’s coverage in his “Future Israel” book (which Vlach also mentions among his sources), though with different coverage in some of the details. I had forgotten some of the details from Horner’s book, and Vlach’s material is likewise refreshing. Among the important points, Vlach brings out the fact that church replacement was already well entrenched by the time of Justin Martyr, who was only saying in his own words an idea not original with him. Vlach also emphasizes the difference between “strong supersessionism” (no future for national Israel) with “moderate supersessionism” (future large-scale salvation for Israel, associated with the Second Coming), and he presents good evidence that throughout history the majority of the church have held to moderate supersessionism. Only Martin Luther, in some of his later writings, is especially noted as taking a strong supersessionist view. From the historical case Vlach further suggests that strong supersessionism is a minority view.
Next, Vlach considers the theological and hermeneutical issues, including treatment of specific passages. This book covers very well the overall distinctions, such as the difference between the supersessionist “either-or” and the “both-and” view of non-supersessionists. A NT passage can have application to us in the church age, but that in no way negates the original prophecy and its meaning. Vlach also discusses the idea of partial-fulfillment, and so it appears he takes more of a “progressive dispensationalist” approach regarding some of the specific texts he addresses: partial fulfillment of a text “in some way” by the church, with future complete fulfillment.
Another good topic covered is typology, an issue which supersessionists rely heavily on for support of their replacement view. Again, Israel is not a type of the church, even if some aspects of Israel’s experience have application for us in the church today. Vlach (like John MacArthur) takes the more limited definition of typology, that only those things explicitly revealed in the NT as “types” can be called types – and “types” are something different than illustrations. I considered this matter last year (this post), and now better understand the different definitions of “types.” Vlach is among those who see two categories, “types” versus “illustrations,” whereas some like-minded teachers view all illustrations as types (the words being synonymous): regardless of whether an explicit mention is made in the NT, a type/illustration follows the rules regarding the parallel correspondences. The main problem with supersessionist typology, as I see it, is the broadbrushing without addressing specific passages. It’s not enough to just say “Israel is a type of the church, God’s people” and disregard most if not all of the Old Testament as not worth serious study. Types (regardless of whether they are specifically called that in the NT) involve specifics: a specific Old Testament passage, and specific correspondences between the original event, person, or institution and the New Testament equivalent understanding.
What I learned and found especially interesting is the treatment of specific passages, and the different variations of interpretations even amongst non-supersessionist theologians. For instance, Vlach’s handling of Acts 15, where James cites Amos during the Jerusalem council, seems rather weak as compared to other expositions of that passage (see this post and this follow-up). Here, he does point out the importance of looking at the overall context, that Acts 15 is not a passage talking about eschatology; the main topic is the acceptance of Gentiles as Gentiles rather than Jewish converts, and so no one should use that text to prove the amillennialist view. He also notes that James only says that “this agrees with” rather than citing fulfillment. But then Vlach takes what appears to be a middle-road approach, that James must have seen this as somehow a partial fulfillment “in some sense” of the original Amos passage. Yet I did not see where he further explained what he meant there.
Despite a few shortcomings (such as the handling of Acts 15), though, I have enjoyed reading Michael Vlach’s book, Has the Church Replaced Israel? Vlach gives a good read overall, concerning the basic issues and answering the overall reasons that supersessionists give for their interpretation.
Bible Reading: The Abrahamic Covenant’s Plural Offspring
In my recent reading through Genesis (list 2 in a modified Horner Bible Reading Plan), I noticed again the references to Abraham’s offspring, or “seed.” Though Reformed Theology emphasizes the singular offspring (Christ), spoken of by Paul in Galatians 3, yet it is obvious from just reading Genesis 17 that some of the Abrahamic covenant texts use offspring in a plural sense, and a sense that clearly cannot be talking about God. For instance, Genesis 17:7 — And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.
I especially noticed the phrase “to be God to you and to your offspring after you.” Of course this is not talking about Christ as the singular seed of Abraham, or of Christ being the true Israel — for that would be saying that God is “to be God” to Himself. The very next sentence, verse 8, gives the land promise in terms that could not be plainer: And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”
Paul in Galatians 3:16 refers to “the promises” and Genesis 18:18, “and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.” Just because Paul cites one aspect of the Abrahamic covenant in no way invalidates other aspects of that covenant. The same principle is at work in other oft-cited passages brought forth as “proofs” of Church Replacement Theology: just because the writer of Hebrews cites the full passage of the New Covenant from Jeremiah 31 does not take away from its meaning in the original text or change its meaning. Acts 15, with James’ citation of Amos 9, is similar. All that James says is that the words of the prophets “agree with” what was happening — which is clearly not the same as having the meaning changed to some unexpected “new meaning.”
Barry Horner, in Future Israel (p. 98) further expands on the issue of singular and plural senses of “seed”:
… the promise of Genesis 12:3 is not made to Christ as the mediator, but to Abraham, and this Scripture overwhelmingly affirms. Further, the seed of Abraham having application to Christ according to Galatians 3:16, this in no way invalidates the “seed” of Genesis 12:1-3 being the nation of Israel anymore than does “seed” in Genesis 13:15; 17:7. The exegetical reason is that God says to Abraham, your “descendants [seed]” shall be as the innumerable stars of heaven (Gen. 15:5). These references clearly refer to the nation of Israel, and not exclusively Christ as an individual. Paul’s employment of Midrash, distinctive Jewish, applicatory interpretation, incorporates Christ as the root of promised blessing without at all denying the obvious promise of national blessing, the plurality of “Abraham’s descendants [seed], heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). Plainly the terms of the curse/blessing in Genesis 12:2-3 principally refer to the national seed here, notwithstanding the attempted textual manipulation which betrays a difficulty that the obvious sense presents. To be sure, Christ is the ground of covenant blessing, but this does not nullify national blessing as is plainly indicated.
Share This!
Scripture Thoughts 