Michael Vlach's serious and thoughtful attempt to refute "Replacement Theology" is very much worthy of attention. It is posted on his site under the title:

12 Reasons Why Supersessionism / Replacement Theology Is Not a Biblical Doctrine 

As a preliminary to his argument, he was careful to define "supersessionism" which is the proper term used by professional theologians when discussing the relation between Israel and the Church (emphasis added):

Various titles have been used in identifying the view that the church has permanently replaced Israel in God’s plan. As Marten H. 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.” The most common designation used in recent scholarly literature to identify this position is "supersessionism."

Michael Vlach ~ Defining Supersessionism 

As noted by Vlach, the proper term "supersessionism" does not necessarily imply a "replacement" - on the contrary, many if not most theologians understand it as a continuation of the Old Testament people of God (Israel) under the New Covenant. Of course, its hard to move an emotionally driven theologically ignorant crowd with technical nomenclature like "supersessionism" --- "Replacement Theology" is so much sexier. It carries within itself a sense of the abused underdogs who were kicked out of their rightful position by those nasty power-crazed hyper-intellectual pseudo-Christians! This exemplifies the superior quality of Vlach's argument. He was careful to address the real theological issues which are usually ignored by popular critics of the so-called "Replacement Theology" as they seek to influence their audience through blind emotionalism and bigoted ignorance.

Vlach presents the first of his 12 Reasons as follows:

1. The Old Testament explicitly teaches the restoration of the nation Israel.

Michael Vlach

This argument fails on a number of points, most notably in that it is not really an argument at all. It amounts to nothing more than mere assertion because Vlach did not exegete any of these Old Testament passages in light of Christ and the New Testament. As such, their meaning remains hidden to him, for Paul declared that "their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ." (2 Corinthians 3:14). It is noteworthy that this error is characteristic of those who argue for a continued covenantal role of ethnic Israel in the plan of God. A proper exegesis of each of the OT verses cited quickly demonstrates why these verses do not say what Vlach assumed they said. I begin with Vlach's subpoint "a. Deuteronomy 30:1-6":

1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, 2 And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; 3 That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. 4 If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: 5 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. 6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Deuteronomy 30:1-6

This promise was fulfilled in 536 BC when God regathered the Jews in Israel after the Babylonian exile. It was fulfilled again and in its finality when God gathered together all the children of God in Christ, as prophesied by Caiaphas:

And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

John 11:49-52

All the children of God - Jew and Gentile - are gathered together in Christ. That is the Gospel. Christ is the True Inheritance of all the seed of Abraham. He is infinitely greater than the Temple or the land or any other earthly thing. And this displays the danger of the current fascination with carnal Israel; it always diminishes Christ and His Gospel. The promises in Deuteronomy 30 included the circumcision of the heart which is what defines the True Jew (Christian):

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 Romans 2:28-29

God praises no man who knowingly rejects His Son Jesus Christ. Therefore, any True Jew who has heard the Gospel is now a Christian. Paul confirmed this when he used the technical term "The Cirumcision" to define Christians:

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Philippians 3:3

And it is confirmed again when Paul identified Christians as the "children of promise" (Gal 4:28) and the "seed of Abraham" - both technical terms which under the first covenant were restricted to Israel:

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 3:26-29

Moving on to Vlach's second subpoint:

b. Jeremiah 30, 31, and 33: This prediction of the New Covenant promises a restoration of Israel that includes spiritual blessings and physical blessings.

Again, Vlach is assuming what he is supposed to be proving. The text makes no distinction between "spiritual" and "physical" blessings. How does Vlach know that God is not using "physical" blessings as symbols of the spiritual blessing of the Gospel? This certainly seems like the most likely interpretaion, since Jeremiah 31 contains the very heart of the Old Testament prophecy of the New Testament Gospel. Indeed, everything in Jeremiah 30, 31, and 33 can be best understood as applying to the salvation of the remnant of believing Israel in Christ, beginning in the first century. Without the knowledge of the Gospel revealed in the New Testaemnt, it certainly could appear that "national" Israel is in view. But in the light of the Gospel, it is impossible to understand those passages as having anything to do with "national" salvation because they are the very heart of the Old Testament prophecy of the New Testament Gospel. A classic example of this error is seen in the common dispensational/futurist assertion that the promises are "obviously" speaking of "literal seed" of Israel as in Jeremiah 30:10:

Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith the LORD; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid. "

Jeremiah 30:10

Of course, a reading of the preceding verse proves that the promise is speaking of Christ and the Gospel:

But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them."

Jeremiah 30:9

"David their king" is a symbol of Christ who was literally "raised up unto them." It is obvious that God did not intend for us to intepret this passage "literally." David was a TYPE of Christ. The passage is speaking of Christ, not the literal King David.

This demonstrates again how the Gospel is diminished when people try to force these Old Testament texts into some prediction of a future role for ethnic Israel. These verses are the very heart and soul of the New Covenant sealed in Christ! That is their true meaning, as taught explicitly in Hebrews 8. Note also that all the tribes of Israel (whatever existed of them anyway from "every nation under heaven") were gathered together at Pentecost when the 120 in the upper room were sealed with the seal of God's Spirit, and then 3000 more later that same day. That event appears to be the fulfillment of all the prophecies concerning the reunion of the "house of Judah" and the "house of Israel" under David their king = Jesus Christ.

Moving on to Vlach's third subpoint:

c. Ezekiel 36–37 This passage promises the future salvation and restoration of the nation Israel to its land.

This proves yet again that the fascination with ethnic Israel causes a blindness to the Gospel. Few passages of the Old Testament testify to Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the New Testament with greater clarity than Ezekiel 36-37:

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Ezekiel 36:26-27

It is the Gospel that fulfills this promise, not some dusty chunk of middle-east real estate. As it is written:

Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

2 Corinthians 3:2-3

Moving on to Vlach's fourth subpoint under his first of 12 Reasons:

In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. 13 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. 14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. 15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

Amos 9:11-15 

This passage is interpreted in the New Testament as fulfilled in Christ and the Gospel:

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. 12 ¶ Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Acts 15:10-18

The "rebuilding of the Tabernacle of David" refers to the church, and specifically to the grafting if of the Gentiles. And how do we know this? Because the words immediately preceding speak of believing in Christ, and the quoted passage speaks of the Gentiles that would be included in the "tabernacle of David." This is the Gospel. This is the point of the whole plan of God. It has nothing to do with an future restoration of ethnic Israel 2000+ years later. Again we see that the only way these passages can be applied to a future "rebuilding" of national Israel is to deny their fulfillemnt in the Gospel.

The reference to Zech 12-14 is likewise flawed because Zechariah 12:10, for example, is quoted by John as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Christ and so we know it was fulfilled in the first century. Likewise, Christ Himself quoted Zechariah 13:8 and applied it to his arrest and crucifixion. So we see again that these prophecies were all prophecies of the Gospel, and to ignore them is to misunderstand the true meaning of Scripture in the most egregious way because the great work of Christ on the cross diminished and ignored in favor of a decidedly unbiblical doctrine of a distinction between the Church and True Israel.

Finally, we have a couple notes to answer on Vlach's "Point #1." In his first note, Vlach states: "Even if the NT never discussed the restoration of Israel, the many explicit texts about Israel's restoration in the OT give enough reason to believe in the restoration of Israel." Unfortunately, Vlach forgot to mention what it is about those "explicit texts" that exempts them from the usual requirement of exegesis and interpretation.

And his second note:

NOTE 2: Since the Abrahamic (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:18-21) and New Covenants (Jer. 31) are eternal and unconditional covenants we should expect God to fulfill these covenants with Israel, the people with whom the covenants were made. John Murray is correct that Israel’s restoration is linked to the covenants of the Old Testament: "Thus the effect is that the future restoration of Israel is certified by nothing less than the certainty belonging to covenantal institution."

It is false to assert that the Abrahamic covenant was "eternal." On the contrary, the covenant of circumcision was ended in the NT (Gal 5:2) and the promises given in Gen 12 and 15 were fulfilled in the New Covenant, as it is written:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 3:28-29

Moving on now to the second of Vlach's 12 Reasons:

Michael Vlach

This is a perfect example of what happens when an Old Testament text is read out of context. It also shows yet again that the attempt to find a future place in God's plan for the ethnic nation of Israel diminishes to the point of ignoring the Gospel of Christ. The verses immediately preceding the promise of "perpetuity" show that God was talking about the perpetuity of the New Covenant in Christ and His Church:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. 35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

Jeremiah 31:31-35

In whom was this promise fulfilled? In The Church of Jesus Christ! The New Testament explains this specific passage:

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 ¶ For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 8:7-13

Could God have been any more explicit? The New Covenant is Christianity, and the Old Covenant - which Vlach incorrectly asserted could never pass away - is described as "ready to vanish away." Furthermore, Paul explicitly declared that the prophecy of God writing His Law on our hearts was fulfilled in the New covenant:

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

2 Corinthians 3:2-3

Vlach's error is compounded by his assumption that Jeremiah 31 was speaking about the carnal nation of Israel that included any and all unbelieving fleshly descendants of Abraham, when in fact the Bible explicitly declares that "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Romans 9:6). Furthermore, the Bible also explicitly identifies Christians as the "seed of Abraham" as noted above.

Some folks try to salvage this argument by asserting that it can not be speaking of Christians because Christians are not "a nation." But that argument falls as quickly as it is stated because the Bible declares that Christians are indeed a nation:

But ye [Christians] are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

1 Peter 2:9

This is confirmed in Romans 4:

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

Romans 4:16-18

Who are the "many nations"? Who are the "seed" spoken of here? Who are the ones "of the faith of Abraham? There is one answer: The Church, the Body of Christ.

All of this is confirmed yet again in the Hebrew text of Genesis 17:4 that Paul quoted. It says Abraham would be the father of many goyim, which means either "nations" or "Gentiles." This was God's plan from the beginning. One Church in Christ - no Jew, no Gentiles - all one in Christ. The church is not a parenthesis in God's plan. The Church was the reason Christ came and died and rose again, to make ONE NEW MAN.

Moving on the the third of Vlach's 12 Reasons:

Michael Vlach

I will respond point by point:

a. Matthew 19:28 -- Apostles to rule over 12 tribes of Israel. According to E. P. Sanders, Matt 19:28 "confirms the view that Jesus looked for the restoration of Israel."

This verse is not decisive at all. It says nothing about an earthly kindgom made up of the twelve tribes and ruled by the twelve disciples. On the contrary, it carries that meaning only if we begin by assuming what we are supposed to be proving. While it is consistent with the millennial theory, in no way does it prove it because it is also consistent with the amillenial view that emphasises the time of the "judging" which Christ declared to be the time of the eschatological "regeneration":

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Matthew 19:28-29

And when shall the "Son of Man sit in the throne of his glory"? We recall the words of Rev 3:21: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." This is confirmed in the parallel passage in Luke 22:

Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28-30

And where is Christ's Kingdom? It is not "of this world" because it is the Kingdom of Heaven. As for Vlach's citation of a scholar who agreed with his position, I could cite any number that support mine. Much more could be said but is not needed to demonstrate that neither Matthew 19:28 nor Luke 22:30 give any real support to Vlach's argument.

b. Matthew 23:37-39 / Luke 13:34-35 -- Israel one day will accept her Messiah. Donald Senior states, "In Matthew’s perspective, the rejection of Jesus by the leaders is indeed a grave sin, one that brings divine judgment. Yet the story of God’s relationship to Israel is not concluded, and the day will come when Jerusalem will again receive its Messiah with shouts of praise."

It is true that ethnic Israel may one day accept her Messiah. Indeed, I pray that day be soon! But that has nothing to do with the question of whether or not national Israel will ever be restored as the ethnic "kingdom of God" from which Christ will rule on earth. These verses offer no support for Vlach's argument. It also is extremely important to understand that the believing Remnant of Israel already received her Messiah in the first century (witness Peter, Paul, James, John, etc.).

c. Luke 21:24 -- Times of the gentiles will come to an end. J. Bradley Chance states, "Close examination of L. 21:24b,c provides a strong hint that Luke did foresee the restoration of Jerusalem."

The meaning of the "times of the Gentiles" is disputed, and there is no clear passage that unambiguously settles the issue. But given that that Revelation is parallel to the Olivet Discourse which mentions the "times of the Gentiles" during which time they will "tread Jerusalme under foot" (Luke 21:24) and that very similar language appears in Revelation 11:2, we have strong evidence that Christ was speaking of the times of the Gentiles as ending in 70 AD (see The Synoptic Apocalypse). But even if Christ was speaking of the times of the Gentiles ending some two thousand years in the distant future, we still need to ask "What happens then?". Let us read and see:

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Luke 21:24

This verse says nothing about what happens after the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. It contains no "strong hint" - no matter how "close" the "examination" - that suggests there will be a national return to the land of Israel.

Point d is identical to point a and was dealt with there. Moving on therefore to point e:

e. Acts 1:3-7 -- Apostles believed in a restoration of the nation Israel after 40 days of kingdom instruction from Jesus. Scot McKnight states: "Since Jesus was such a good teacher, we have every right to think that the impulsive hopes of his audience were on target. This is not to say that they, at times, drew incorrect references or came to inaccurate conclusions about time or about content, but it is to admit that Jesus believed in an imminent realization of the kingdom to restore Israel and that he taught this with clarity."

After 40 days of "kingdom instruction" the Apostles were still ignorant of God's plan to include Gentiles and evangelize the world. McKnight's comments are truly benighted because he suggests that the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ was as mistaken as his disciples in believing "in an imminent realization of the kingdom to restore Israel." Such comments need no futher refutation.

f. Acts 3:19-21 -- Restoration is preached to the leaders of Israel.

This verse speaks of the "restitution of all things" in Christ Jesus and His Church. It says nothing about the "restoration" - which actually would be a reversion to empty types and shadows - of an earthly ethnic kingdom in the middle east.

Point i is nothing but an invalid ad hominem appeal to motive  which fails utterly to establish any point in any debate.

Point ii says nothing about the restoration of national Israel as a theocratic kingdom with Christ ruling from Jerusalem. The conversion of national Israel would be just that - their conversion to Christ at which point they will be grafted back into the Olive Tree (Church). This event is entirely in keeping with the biblical doctrine of supersessionism.

Point iii is like Point ii; Kasemann's comments say nothing about a future Israeli theocracy with Christ ruling on earth from Jerusalem. It does not prove supersessionism to be unbiblical.

The concludes the refutation of the first three points of Vlach's argument. I believe he has failed to present a single sustainable argument to prove his assertion that supersessionism is non-biblical. On the contrary, I think the case is overwhelmingly in favor of supersessionism as the biblical doctrine. I would be absolutely delighted if there is anyone out there reading this refutation who would like to challenge any of the arguments I have presented.

This article is currently being discussed on the Bible Wheel forum here.

Questions? Comments? Join the discussion on the Bible Wheel Forum!