Michael Vlach, Israel and the Church

One perspective on how to understand this contentious issue:

The debate over what is known as ‘replacement theology’ or ‘fulfillment theology’ or ‘supersesessionism’ is a long-standing, complex, and multilayered biblical and theological discussion that has not been fully and finally resolved despite hundreds of years and thousands of volumes devoted to dealing with it. It certainly will not be resolved here.

For those not in the know, this theology, very briefly stated, entails the belief that the Christian church has become the new or true Israel, and that it has superseded the Jewish people, basically taking over their role as God’s covenantal people. Thus the church is now heir to Israel’s ancient promises.

That is far too brief of an overview, and there are different versions and formulations of this position. But for more information by way of an introduction, see this earlier piece of mine: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2023/10/20/on-replacement-theology-an-introduction/

The literature on this contentious debate is voluminous, and various points of view need to be considered. But here I simply want to offer just one – of many – takes on this. This comes in the form of three books by American theologian Michael Vlach. They are:

Has the Church Replaced Israel? B&H, 2010.
How Does Jesus Fulfill the Old Testament? Theological Studies Press, 2025.
Israel in the Bible’s Storyline: The Role of Israel in God’s Plan from Genesis to Revelation. Theological Studies Press, 2026.

While proper book reviews would be ideal, I will simply alert you to these works and give you a view of what is in them by offering some choice quotes.

Has the Church Replaced Israel?

In researching this subject, I have found that most of the arguments supersessionists offer for holding that the church is the complete replacement or fulfillment of Israel are based on implications they believe are true but in reality are not biblically accurate or logically consistent. For example, supersessionists claim that the unity between Jews and Gentiles expressed in Eph 2:11-22 means there can be no functional role for national Israel in the future, but this simply is not the case since spiritual unity does not necessarily cancel ethnic and functional distinctions between groups. Or supersessionists argue that the application of “Israel” language to the church in passages like 1 Pet 2:9-10 and Rom 9:24-26 means that the church is now the new Israel. But the OT predicted the day would come when Gentiles would assume the language used to describe Israel but not in the sense of assuming Israel’s identity (see Isa 19:24-25). Or supersessionists claim that since Jesus is the fulfillment of the seed of Abraham (see Gal 3:16), then the promises to the believing ethnic seed of Abraham through Jacob are no longer in effect. But the concept of “seed of Abraham” is not an either-or concept. There are multiple senses of “seed of Abraham” in Scripture with no one sense cancelling out the meaning of the others. Also, supersessionists, in rightly claiming that Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT, mistakenly assume that the details of OT prophecies are absorbed into Christ in some Hindu or Platonic-like way that makes the specifics of these prophecies no longer relevant. In actuality, though, the NT often affirms OT expectations concerning Israel as a nation, the temple, the coming of a personal Antichrist, and the Day of the Lord. In contrast, the nonsupersessionist position is built on many explicit biblical passages that predict a coming salvation and restoration of the nation Israel.

 

Supersessionists, therefore, find themselves in the difficult situation of having to prove that explicit predictions of Israel’s restoration do not mean what they meant when these predictions were first written. The task of the nonsupersessionist, though, is simpler and less risky. His main task is to show that no passage or passages clearly overturn what God has explicitly declared regarding Israel’s future. Our view is that the NT harmonizes with the OT but does not change its meaning. I fear that the supersessionist position is tampering with the strongest biblical evidence possible – multiple explicit declarations in both Testaments that the nation Israel will be saved and restored. (pp. 3-4)

How Does Jesus Fulfill the Old Testament

As we examine the biblical evidence concerning Jesus and fulfillment, we must grasp that God’s plans are intricate and multi-faceted. This complexity is reflected in how Jesus fulfills the Old Testament, which encompasses strategic events; themes; individuals; and multi-dimensional promises, covenants, and prophecies made with several parties— each contributing to a grand narrative. If God’s purposes are complex and multi-faceted, so too will fulfillment in Jesus be. Jesus is deeply connected to all these elements, and His fulfilling these areas is uniquely suited to each one. Thus, fulfillment can have a nuanced meaning based on the category being fulfilled.

 

For instance, the way Jesus fulfills specific messianic prophecies looks a little different from how he fulfills the feasts of Israel. Also, the fulfillment of messianic roles like Last Adam and Davidic King is not the same as the fulfillment of geo-political battles between nations as seen in texts like Daniel 11. In addition, since there are two comings of Jesus, some fulfillments occur with Jesus’ first advent, while other fulfillments happen with Jesus’ second coming. So when we say Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel’s exodus from exile, this does not mean that event has happened yet, but it will at Jesus’ second coming. These distinctions are crucial for understanding the multifaceted nature of Christ’s fulfillment of the Old Testament. Jesus is the means for all of these. And we can say they are “literally fulfilled.” But since we are dealing with differing categories, what fulfilment looks like can vary. (pp. 7-8)

Israel in the Bible’s Storyline

Scripture presents Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s hope. At the center of Israel’s destiny stands a Person. Yet this claim requires care. What does it actually mean for a nation to be fulfilled by an individual?

 

In Scripture, God often deals with many through one. A single person can represent an entire people. A representative can embody a nation’s calling, bear its burden, and secure its future. Fulfilment, then, does not mean cancellation. It does not mean Israel’s story ends because the Messiah has come. Instead, fulfillment means that God brings Israel’s purposes and promises to their intended goal through the One He has appointed.

 

Israel is a corporate people, chosen and shaped by God across history. He promised that Isreal’s identity as a nation would endure as long as the fixed order of sun, moon, and stars remains (Jer. 31:35-37). Yet from the beginning, God bound Israel’s future to a coming representative – One who would embody her calling and succeed where she failed. That representative is Jesus of Nazareth, Israel’s Messiah and Savior.

 

Jesus is not only Israel’s Redeemer. He is the faithful Israelite, the obedient Son, the servant through whom God’s promises move forward. He is the seed of the woman who defeats the serpent. He is the seed of Abraham through whom blessing flows to the nations, fulfilling the promise that Abraham’s seed would possess “the gate of his enemies” and that “in your offering shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 22:17-18 ESV). He is the coming ruler promised in Jacob’s prophecy, the One to whom “the sceptre shall not depart,” whose reign will bring abundance, peace, and blessing (Gen. 49:10-12). He is the son of David who will reign as King. He is the true Israelite who fulfills Israel’s calling and guarantees that Israel’s mission will be completed. Where Israel failed, He succeeds. And because He triumphs, Israel will succeed and the nation’s future and destiny are secured.

 

At times, however, this relationship between Jesus and Israel has been framed in a way that quietly sidelines the nation itself. If Jesus is the true Israelite, some conclude, then the nation no longer has a meaningful role in God’s purposes. If Jesus fulfills Israel, they argue, then what need is there for Israel to matter anymore? Israel’s story simply fades away. Fulfilment, with this view, becomes replacement.

 

But Scripture tells a far richer and more hopeful story. Jesus fulfills Israel not by dissolving her identity but by representing her and then restoring her. In God’s design, the One stands for the many so that the many may finally become what they were always meant to be. With this understanding, Jesus is the restorer of the nation, not the dissolver of her. (pp. 119-120)

Needless to say, these short representative quotes make up only a small fraction of the overall case Vlach seeks to make on this topic. And he of course is representing a dispensational hermeneutic here – not to everyone’s liking. So it is possible that some of you already want to go to war here, attempting to show why and where Vlach is wrong.

But recall that his view is but one of a number of possible ways to deal with this complex topic. So before you start lobbing theological hand grenades my way, perhaps wait a bit until I quote other authors with other views on this in forthcoming articles.

[1516 words]