Supersessionism Articles>
The Supersessionist View of 1 Peter 2:9-10
26 Nov 2004

 


The Supersessionist View of 1 Pet 2:9–10


By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.


 


At times, the New Testament writers applied terminology used of Israel in the Old Testament to the New Testament church. Like Old Testament Israel, the church is identified as God’s own possession (cf. Exod 19:5 with Titus 2:14), “My people” (cf. 2 Chr 7:14 with Acts 15:14 and 2 Cor 6:16), and the “circumcision” (Phil 3:3). In addition, believing members in the church are called “a chosen race,” “a royal priesthood,” and “a holy nation” (1 Pet 2:9). Disagreement exists, however, concerning the significance of these Israelite designations. Does the application of these terms to the church mean that the church is the new Israel? Those who hold a replacement view usually say that it does. To them, as Saucy points out, “This application of Israel’s terminology to the church means that the New Testament writers were identifying the church as the new Israel, hence redefining the concept of Israel.”[1]


 


            In reference to 1 Pet 2:9–10, Scot McKnight states, “There is no passage in the New Testament that more explicitly associates the Old Testament terms for Israel with the New Testament church than this one.”[2] The text reads:


 


But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.


 


The titles, “chosen race,” “royal priesthood,” “holy nation,” and “people of God,” are taken from Isa 43:20 and Exod 19:5–6. These designations, used of Israel in the Old Testament, are now used by Peter to describe New Testament believers.


 


This application of “Israel” terminology to the church in 1 Pet 2:9–10 has led some to conclude that Peter is identifying the church as Israel.[3] Fred H. Klooster, for example, states, “The church as the body of Christ is composed of believing Jews and Gentiles and is the new Israel, ‘a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.’”[4] Hunter and Homrighausen write, “Peter proceeds to apply title after title conferred on the old Israel to the church as the new Israel of God.”[5] Grudem also believes 1 Pet 2:9 teaches a theology of replacement: “God’s chosen people are no longer said to be those physically descended from Abraham, for Christians are now the true ‘chosen race’ (v. 9). . . . What more could be needed in order to say with assurance that the church has now become the true Israel of God.”[6]


 


In addition to viewing the church as the new Israel, some declare that 1 Pet 2:9–10 teaches the replacement of national Israel with the church. Paul J. Achtemeier writes, “The twofold description of the new community (2:5; 2:9–10) shows by its language that the church has now taken over the role of Israel.”[7] I. Howard Marshall makes a strong statement concerning the certainty of the supersessionist view of 1 Pet 2:9–10: “It is impossible to avoid the impression that Peter deliberately says that the contemporary people of Israel are no longer God’s people, standing in community with his people in Old Testament times, but rather that the church is the true heir of Israel.”[8]






[1] Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 205. Saucy is not a supersessionist.


 



[2] Scot McKnight, 1 Peter, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 109–10.


 



[3] Some who view 1 Pet 2:9–10 as teaching that the church is “Israel” include: Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, TNTC, vol. 17 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 113; Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 90–92; Woudstra, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” 234; Ernest Best, 1 Peter, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 108–09; J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1969), 95; R. V. G. Tasker, The Old Testament in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1945), 138; Robert H. Mounce, Born Anew to a Living Hope: A Commentary on 1 and 2 Peter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 28; John Bright, The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning For the Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1953), 227; J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, WBC, vol. 49 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988), 107; Ridderbos, Paul, 332; Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 152; I. Howard Marshall, 1 Peter, IVPNTCS (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991), 72–73; LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, 106; Zorn, Christ Triumphant, 94.


 



[4] Fred H. Klooster, “The Biblical Method of Salvation: A Case for Continuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity, 159.



[5] Archibald M. Hunter and Elmer G. Homrighausen, “The First Epistle of Peter,” IB, vol. 12 (New York: Abingdon, 1957), 110.


 



[6] Grudem, 1 Peter, 113.


 



[7] Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 152.


 



[8] Marshall, 1 Peter, 72–73.