supersessionism
Definition (contested)
Supersessionism — also called replacement theology — is the theological doctrine that the Christian church has replaced national Israel as God’s chosen covenant people. The promises God made to Israel are held to have passed over to the church through Israel’s disobedience (cf. Matt. 21:43). In church-historical scholarship a hard variant (Israel’s covenants are fully abrogated) is typically distinguished from a soft variant (the covenants are hermeneutically reinterpreted for the church in Christ).
In the corpus of apokatastasis.wiki, supersessionism is a contested term: Stephen Jones explicitly rejects it. He proposes instead a two-level model in which God operates simultaneously on a national-Israelite level and on an ecclesiological level. Jones’ alternative is neither dispensationalist (he does not accept an exclusively national perspective) nor ecclesiocentric (he disputes that the church has inherited all of Israel’s covenants).
Author variants
Stephen Jones
Jones uses supersessionism as the negative reference point for his ecclesiology. In Secrets of Time he names the commonly held view he opposes:
“It is also commonly taught among other Christian groups that the Church has now become ‘Chosen,’ replacing the national with the spiritual.”
[Jones, Secrets of Time, ch. 11]
His alternative is a two-level model: on the national level God fulfills His Word to Israel — without regard to individual differences in faith — while simultaneously working on a spiritual level that makes a clear distinction between Overcomers, general believers, and unbelievers. Matt. 21:43 marks for Jones the transfer of legal election (the responsibility to bear Kingdom fruits), not the abolition of Israel’s national role. He distinguishes:
“There is a significant difference between legal Chosenness and actual Chosenness. Those legally Chosen are those whom God holds accountable to bring forth the Fruits of the Kingdom. Those who are actually Chosen are those who will indeed bring forth the Fruits of the Kingdom (Matt. 21:43).”
[Jones, Secrets of Time, ch. 11]
Jones’ position is further complicated by his identification of the modern State of Israel with a dual prophetic line: partly the remnant of Judah, partly the fulfillment of Mal. 1:4 (the Esau/Edom line with Zionist sentiments). His ecclesiology is therefore neither pro-substitution nor straightforwardly pro-national Israel, but a layered bi-focal model.