Most historic Christian churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, Methodist churches and Reformed churches, hold that the Old Covenant has three components: ceremonial, moral, and civil (cf. covenant theology).[4][5] They teach that while the ceremonial and civil (judicial) laws have been fulfilled, the moral law of the Ten Commandments continues to bind Christian believers.[4][6][5] Since the 19th century, certain Christian communities, such as the Plymouth Brethren, have espoused dispensationalist theology as contrasted to supersessionism and covenant theology.[7] Additionally, as part of Christian–Jewish reconciliation, the Roman Catholic Church has placed an increased emphasis on the shared history between the Christian and modern Jewish religions.
Rabbinic Judaism disregards supersessionism as offensive to Jewish history. Islam teaches that it is the final and most authentic expression of Abrahamicmonotheism, superseding both Judaism and Christianity. The Islamic teaching of tahrif teaches that earlier monotheistic scriptures or earlier interpretations of them have been corrupted by later interpretations of them, while the Quran presents a pure version of their divine message.
Etymology
The word supersessionism comes from the English phrase to supersede, from the Latin verb sedeo, sedere, sedi, sessum, "to sit",[8] plus super, "upon". It thus signifies one thing being replaced or supplanted by another.[9]
Throughout Church history, many Christian theologians saw the New Covenant in Christ as a replacement for the Mosaic Covenant[10] and the Church as the new people of God.[11] The word supersession is used by Sydney Thelwall in the title of chapter three of his 1870 translation of Tertullian's An Answer to the Jews.[12]
In the New Testament, Jesus and others repeatedly give Jews priority in their mission, as in Jesus's expression of him coming to the Jews rather than to gentiles[13] and in Paul the Apostle's formula "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile".[14] Yet after the death of Jesus, the inclusion of the gentiles as equals in this burgeoning sect of Judaism also caused problems, particularly when it came to gentiles keeping the Mosaic law,[15] which was both a major issue at the Council of Jerusalem and a theme of Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, though the relationship of Paul and Judaism is still disputed today.
Paul's views on the Jews are complex, but he is generally regarded as the first person to make the claim that by not accepting claims of Jesus's divinity, non-believing Jews disqualified themselves from salvation.[16] Paul himself was a Jew. After a conversion experience he came to accept Jesus's claim to be the Messiah later in his life. In the opinion of Roman Catholic ex-priest James Carroll, accepting Jesus's divinity, for Paul, was dichotomous with being a Jew. His personal conversion and his understanding of the dichotomy between being Jewish and accepting Jesus's divinity, was the religious philosophy he wanted to see adopted among other Jews of his time. However, New Testament scholar N.T. Wright argues that Paul saw his faith in Jesus as precisely the fulfillment of his Judaism, not that there was any tension between being Jewish and Christian.[17] Christians quickly adopted Paul's views.[18]
For most of Christian history, supersessionism has been the mainstream interpretation of the New Testament of all three major historical traditions within Christianity – Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant.[19] The text most often evident in favor of the supersessionist view is Hebrews 8:13: "In speaking of 'a new covenant' [Jer. 31.31–32] he has made the first one obsolete."[20]
Church Fathers
Many early Christian commentators taught that the Old Covenant was fulfilled and superseded by the New Covenant in Christ, for instance, Justin Martyr wrote that the "true spiritual Israel" referred to those who had "been led to God through this crucified Christ".[21]Irenaeus taught that, while the New Covenant had superseded the old, the moral law underlying the Law of Moses continued to stand in the New Covenant.[22] Whereas, Tertullian believed that the New Covenant brought with it a new law, writing: "Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices, the old law being obliterated, the coming of whose abolition the action itself demonstrates. ...Therefore, as we have shown above that the coming cessation of the old law and of the carnal circumcision was declared, so, too, the observance of the new law and the spiritual circumcision has shone out into the voluntary observances of peace."[23]
Augustine of Hippo followed the views of the earlier Church Fathers but emphasized the importance to Christianity of the continued existence of the separate Rabbinic Jewish faith: "The Jews ... are thus by their own Scriptures a testimony to us that we have not forged the prophecies about Christ."[24] The Catholic church built its system of eschatology on his theology, where Christ rules the earth spiritually through his triumphant church. Augustine, however, also mentioned to "love" the Jews as a means to convert them to Christianity.[25] Jeremy Cohen,[26] followed by John Y. B. Hood and James Carroll,[27] sees this as having had decisive social consequences, with Carroll saying, "It is not too much to say that, at this juncture, Christianity 'permitted' Judaism to endure because of Augustine."[28]
Supersessionism is not the name of any official Roman Catholic Church teaching and the word appears in no Church documents, but official Catholic teaching has reflected varying levels of supersessionist thought throughout its history, especially prior to the mid-twentieth century. The theology that religious Jews dissent by continuing to exist outside the Church is extensive in Catholic liturgy and literature.[29] The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) marked a shift in emphasis of official Catholic teaching about Judaism, a shift which may be described as a move from "hard" to "soft" supersessionism, to use the terminology of David Novak.[30]
Prior to Vatican II, Catholic teaching on the matter was characterized by "displacement" or "substitution" theologies, according to which the Church and its New Covenant took the place of Judaism and its "Old Covenant", the latter being rendered void by the coming of Jesus.[31] The nullification of the Old Covenant was often explained in terms of the "deicide charge" that Jews forfeited their covenantal relationship with God by executing the divine Christ.[32] As recently as 1943, Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical Mystici corporis Christi:
By the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. ... [O]n the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees and fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.
At the Second Vatican Council, which was convened two decades after the Holocaust, a different framework emerged on how Catholics should think about the status of the Jewish covenant. The declaration nostra aetate, which was promulgated in 1965, made several statements which signaled a shift away from "hard supersessionist" replacement thinking which posited that the Jews' covenant was no longer acknowledged by God. Retrieving Paul's language in chapter 11 of his Epistle to the Romans, the declaration states, "God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues. …Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures."[33] A draft of the declaration contained a passage which originally called for "the entry of that [Jewish] people into the fullness of the people of God established by Christ";[34] however, at the suggestion of Catholic priest (and convert from Judaism) John M. Oesterreicher,[35] it was replaced in the final promulgated version with the following language: "the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and 'serve him shoulder to shoulder' (Zeph 3:9)."[33]
Further developments in Catholic thinking on the covenantal status of ethnic Jews were led by Pope John Paul II. Among his most noteworthy statements on the matter is that which occurred during his historic visit to the synagogue in Mainz (1980), where he called Jews the "people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been abrogated by God (cf. Romans 11:29, "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" [NRSV])."[36] In 1997, John Paul II again affirmed the Jews' covenantal status: "This people continues in spite of everything to be the people of the covenant and, despite human infidelity, the Lord is faithful to his covenant."[36]
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in his 1999 work Many Religions – One Covenant that "the Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superseded."[37]
The post-Vatican II shift toward acknowledging the ethnic Jews as a covenanted people has led to heated discussions in the Catholic Church over the issue of missionary activity directed toward Jews, with some Catholics theologians with Cardinal Avery Dulles reasoning that "if Christ is the redeemer of the world, every tongue should confess him",[38] while others vehemently oppose "targeting Jews for conversion".[39] Weighing in on this matter, Cardinal Walter Kasper, then president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, reaffirmed the validity of the Jews' covenant and then continued:[40]
[B]ecause as Christians we know that God's covenant with Israel by God's faithfulness is not broken (Rom 11,29; cf. 3,4), mission understood as call to conversion from idolatry to the living and true God (1 Thes 1,9) does not apply and cannot be applied to Jews. …This is not a merely abstract theological affirmation, but an affirmation that has concrete and tangible consequences; namely, that there is no organised Catholic missionary activity towards Jews as there is for all other non-Christian religions.
— Walter Kasper, "The Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews: A Crucial Endeavour of the Catholic Church" (2002)
We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for "the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.
— Pope Francis, "Evangelii Gaudium" (2013)
Similarly, the words of Cardinal Kasper, "God's grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, [as] the faithful response of the Jewish people to God's irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises,"[42] highlight the covenantal relationship of God with the Jewish people, but differ from Pope Francis in calling the Jewish faith "salvific". In 2011, Kasper specifically repudiated the notion of "displacement" theology, clarifying that the "New Covenant for Christians is not the replacement (substitution), but the fulfillment of the Old Covenant."[43]
These statements by Catholic officials signal a remaining point of debate, wherein some adhere to a movement away from supersessionism, and others remain with a "soft" notion of supersessionism. traditionalist Catholic groups, such as the Society of St. Pius X, strongly oppose the theological developments concerning Judaism made at Vatican II and retain "hard" supersessionist views.[44] Even among mainstream Catholic groups and official Catholic teaching, elements of "soft" supersessionism remain. The Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to a future corporate repentance on the part of Jews:
The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by 'all Israel,' for 'a hardening has come upon part of Israel' in their 'unbelief' toward Jesus [Rom 11:20-26; cf. Mt 23:39]. ... The 'full inclusion' of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of 'the full number of the Gentiles' [Rom 11:12, 25; cf. Lk 21:24], will enable the People of God to achieve 'the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,' in which 'God may be all in all.'[45] The Church teaches that there is an integral continuity between the covenants rather than a rupture.[46]
In the Second Vatican Council's lumen gentium[47] (1964), the Church stated that God "chose the race of Israel as a people" and "set up a covenant" with them, instructing them and making them holy. However, "all these things. …were done by way of preparation and as a figure of that new and perfect covenant" instituted by and ratified in Christ (No. 9). Vatican II also affirmed, "the Church is the new people of God" without being "Israel according to the flesh", the Jewish people.
In Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism (1985), the Church stated that the "Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer of all."
Protestantism
Modern Protestants hold a range of positions on supersessionism and the relationship between the Church and the Jewish people.[48][49] These differences arise from dissimilar literal versus figurative approaches to understanding the relationships between the covenants of the Bible, particularly the relationship between the covenants of the Old Testament and the New Covenant.[48]
Extensive discussion is found in Christian views on the Old Covenant and in the respective articles for each of these viewpoints: for example, there is a section within dispensationalism detailing that perspective's concept of Israel. Differing approaches influence how the land promise in Genesis 12,[48] 15[57] and 17[48] is understood, whether it is interpreted literally or figuratively, both with regard to the land and the identity of people who inherit it.[48][57]
Paul van Buren developed a thoroughly nonsupersessionist position, in contrast to Karl Barth, his mentor.[52] He wrote, "The reality of the Jewish people, fixed in history by the reality of their election, in their faithfulness in spite of their unfaithfulness, is as solid and sure as that of the gentile church."[60]
Mormonism
Mormonism professes to be the restoration of the original Christian faith and that the ancient Hebrew religion was a form of proto-Christianity. Nevertheless, Latter-day Saints believe that the modern day descendants of Israel are still God's covenant people, but they have nonetheless apostatized from the proto-Christian faith that God anciently revealed through the ancient patriarchs and Israel's prophets. For example, The Book of Moses narrates that the biblical patriarch Enoch was shown a vision of Jesus as the Messiah who should be crucified and resurrected.[61] The Book of Abraham narrates that God revealed to the titular biblical patriarch a vision of the Son of Man (a common title for Jesus Christ) being chosen in a premortal council to serve as the Redeemer of mankind.[62]
Historically, Latter-day Saint leaders and church instructional materials have promoted the idea that those who accept baptism into the church are literal descendants of the scattered Israelites, primarily the tribe of Ephraim.[63] However, those teachings have been de-emphasized since the latter 20th century in favor of a competing narrative regarding members being adopted or "grafted" into the House of Israel.[64]
The title page of the Book of Mormon—which is believed to be among the contents translated by Joseph Smith from the gold plates—states that one of its primary purposes is "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God."[65] The Nephites—whom the Book of Mormon presents as ancient Israelites who escaped Jerusalem just before the Babylonian captivity—are said to have kept the Law of Moses with an understanding that it presaged Christ's messianic mission.[66] The Book of Mormon further teaches that because the Jews rejected and crucified Christ, they will be scattered among the nations of the earth and scourged across generations until they accept Christ as the true Messiah.[67] According to the Doctrine & Covenants, after Jesus reveals himself to the Jews, they will weep because of their iniquities.[68]
In 1982, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, published a book titled The Millennial Messiah, which devotes an entire chapter to "The Jews and the Second Coming". It states:
"Let this fact be engraved in the eternal records with a pen of steel: the Jews were cursed, and smitten, and cursed anew, because they rejected the gospel, cast out their Messiah, and crucified their King. ... Let the spiritually illiterate suppose what they may, it was the Jewish denial and rejection of the Holy One of Israel, whom their fathers worshiped in the beauty and holiness, that has made them a hiss and byword in all nations and that has taken millions of their fair sons and daughters to untimely graves. ... What sayeth the holy word? "They shall be scourged by all people, because they crucify the God of Israel, and turn the hearts aside, rejecting signs and wonders, and the power and glory of the God of Israel. And because they turn their hearts aside,…and have despised the Holy One of Israel, they shall wander in the flesh, and perish, and become a hiss and by-word and be hated among all nations.: (1 Ne. 19:13-14; 2 Ne. 6:9-11.) Such is the prophetic word of Nephi."[69][70][71]
Rabbinic Judaism rejects supersessionism, only discussing the topic as an idea upheld by Christian and Muslim theologians. Some modern Jews are offended by the traditional Christian belief in supersessionism, as they believe it undermines the history of their religion.[75]
In its canonical form, the Islamic idea of tahrif teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures or their interpretations have been corrupted, which has obscured the divine message that they originally contained. According to this teaching, the Quran both points out and corrects these supposed errors introduced by previous corruption of monotheistic scriptures, which makes it the final and most pure divine revelation.[76][77]
Sandra Toenis Keiting argues that Islam was supersessionist from its inception, advocating the view that the Quranic revelations would "replace the corrupted scriptures possessed by other communities", and that early Islamic scriptures display a "clear theology of revelation that is concerned with establishing the credibility of the nascent community" vis-à-vis other religions.[76] In contrast, Abdulaziz Sachedina has argued that Islamic supersessionism stems not from the Quran or hadith, but rather from the work of Muslim jurists who reinterpreted the Quranic message about islam (in its literal meaning of "submission") being "the only true religion with God" into an argument about the religion of Islam being superior to other faiths, thereby providing theoretical justification for Muslim political dominance and a wider interpretation of the notion of jihad.[78]
In Islamic legal exegesis (tafsir), abrogation (naskh) is the theory developed to resolve contradictory Quranic revelation by amending the earlier revelation.[79] Only Quran 2:106 uses a form of the word naskh (specifically "nanskh" meaning "we abrogate"). Q2:106 indicates of two varieties of abrogation: "supersession" – the "suspension" and replacement of the old verse without its elimination – or "suppression" – the nullification of the old verse from the written Quran (mus'haf).[80]
Economic supersessionism is used in the technical theological sense of function (see economic Trinity). It is the view that the practical purpose of the nation of Israel in God's plan is replaced by the role of the Church. It is represented by writers such as Justin Martyr, Augustine, and Barth.
Structural supersessionism is Soulen's term for the de facto marginalization of the Old Testament as normative for Christian thought. In his words, "Structural supersessionism refers to the narrative logic of the standard model whereby it renders the Hebrew Scriptures largely indecisive for shaping Christian convictions about how God's works as Consummator and Redeemer engage humankind in universal and enduring ways."[82] Soulen's terminology is used by Craig A. Blaising, in "The Future of Israel as a Theological Question".[83]
These three views are neither mutually exclusive, nor logically dependent, and it is possible to hold all of them or any one with or without the others.[81] The work of Matthew Tapie attempts a further clarification of the language of supersessionism in modern theology that Peter Ochs has called "the clearest teaching on supersessionism in modern scholarship." Tapie argued that Soulen's view of economic supersessionism shares important similarities with those of Jules Isaac's thought (the French-Jewish historian well known for his identification of "the teaching of contempt" in the Christian tradition) and can ultimately be traced to the medieval concept of the "cessation of the law" – the idea that Jewish observance of the ceremonial law (Sabbath, circumcision, and dietary laws) ceases to have a positive significance for Jews after the passion of Christ. According to Soulen, Christians today often repudiate supersessionism but they do not always carefully examine just what that is supposed to mean. Soulen thinks Tapie's work is a remedy to this situation.[84]
^Bartlett, David L.; Taylor, Barbara Brown (27 January 2011). Feasting on the Word: Year A, Volume 3: Pentecost and Season after Pentecost 1 (Propers 3-16). Westminster John Knox Press. p. 350. ISBN978-1-61164-109-7. Church fathers such as Justin Martyr and Origen taught variations on supersessionism and Augustine's understanding of election led him to a similar conclusion.
^Pietsch, B. M. (6 July 2015). Dispensational Modernism. Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19-027307-1. ... A. J. Gordon began his pastorate non-dispensational, but after discussions with Plymouth Brethren laymen and "a searching of the Scripture," he experienced a "second conversion."
^Fonrobert, Charlotte Elisheva. "Jewish Christians, Judaizers, and Christian Anti-Judaism." A People's History of Christianity, Volume 2: Late Ancient Christianity. Ed. Virginia Burrus. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2005.
^"Second Declaration on the Jews and Non-Christians, 28–29 September 1964," qtd. in Philip A. Cunningham et al (eds.), The Catholic Church and the Jewish People (Fordham, 2007), p. 195.
^ abcdeMaltz, Steve. The Real Roots of Supersessionism. in Smith, Calvin L., ed. (2013). The Jews, Modern Israel and the New Supersessionism. Kent: King's Divinity Press. ISBN978-0-9562006-1-7
^Frankel J, Mendelsohn E. The Protestant-Jewish Conundrum: Studies in Contemporary Jewry, Volume 24. Oxford University Press, 2010. ISBN978-0-19-975341-3
^ abCharry ET. Supersessionism. in Green JB, Lapsley J, Miles R, Verhey A (editors). Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics. Baker Academic, 2011. ISBN978-0-8010-3406-0
^Provan CD. The Church Is Israel Now: The Transfer Of Conditional Privilege. Ross House Books, 1987. ISBN978-1-879998-39-1
^Diprose, RE. Israel and the Church: The Origins and Effects of Replacement Theology. InterVarsity Press, 2004. ISBN978-0-8308-5689-3
^Vlach MJ. Has the Church Replaced Israel? : A Theological Evaluation. B&H Academic, 2010. ISBN978-0-8054-4972-3
^Mauss, Armand L. (1999). "Presidential Address: In Search of Ephraim: Traditional Mormon Conceptions of Lineage and Race". Journal of Mormon History. 25 (1): 131–173. ISSN0094-7342. JSTOR23287741.
Burton, John (1985). "The Exegesis of Q.2:106". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 48: 452–469.
Burton, John (1970). "Those Are the High-Flying Cranes". Journal of Semitic Studies. 15: 246–265.
Carroll, James (2001). Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Chazan, Robert (2000). "Christian-Jewish Interactions Over the Ages". Christianity in Jewish Terms. pp. 7–24.
Cohen, Jeremy (1991). Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation. New York: New York University Press.
Connelly, John (2012). From Enemy to Brother: The Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews, 1933–1965. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Michael, Robert (2011). A history of Catholic antisemitism: the dark side of the church (1st Palgrave Macmillan pbk. ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN978-0-230-11131-8.
Pawlikowski, John T. (1989). Jesus and the Theology of Israel. Michael Glazier.
Rodes, Stanley J. (2014). From Faith to Faith: John Wesley's Covenant Theology and the Way of Salvation. James Clarke & Co. ISBN978-0-227-90220-2.
Soulen, R. Kendall (1996). The God of Israel and Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress. ISBN978-0-8006-2883-3.
Tertullian. "An Answer to the Jews". In Alexander Robers; James Donaldson (eds.). The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 3. Translated by Sydney Thelwall. Edinburgh: T&T Clark – via The Tertullian Project.
Tapie, Matthew A. Aquinas on Israel and the Church: The Question of Supersessionism in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas. Pickwick/Wipf & Stock, 2014. 1st chapter
,_c._1657.jpg)
.jpg)
