Supersessionism

Law and Grace, by Lucas Cranach the Elder, a Lutheran. The left (dark) side of the tree illustrates law, while the right (bright) side illustrates grace.

Supersessionism, fulfillment theology, and replacement theology are terms long used for the biblical interpretation that the Christian Church supersedes or replaces Israel in God's plan, and that the New Covenant nullifies the biblical promises made to Israel, including the Abrahamic Covenant, the Land Covenant, and the Davidic Covenant. However, it has no bearing on the Mosaic Covenant (or Mosaic Law), which most Christian groups agree was always intended to be superseded by the New Covenant. The terms do not appear in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; however, the view they cover is considered part of most traditional Christian views of the Old Covenant, viewing the Christian Church as the inheritor of the biblical promises made with the children of Israel.^[1][2] This view contrasts with the minority views of dual-covenant theology on the one side and abrogation of Old Covenant laws on the other.

More recently, supersessionism and replacement theology are also applied to the parallel case of Islam and its attitude towards Christianity and Judaism.

Etymology

The word supersessionism comes from the English verb to supersede, from the Latin verb sedeo, sedere, sedi, sessum, "to sit",^[3] plus super, "upon". It thus signifies one thing being replaced or supplanted by another.^[4] Hence the term supersessionism does not come from the Latin Church Fathers' description of their own views but as the application of a modern term to older views.

The word supersession is used by Sydney Thelwall in the title of chapter three of his 1870 translation of Tertullian's Adversus Iudaeos (written between 198 and 208). The title is provided by Thelwall; it is not in the original Latin.^[5] The term "Supersessionism" was developed around the 1980s in western academia to portray traditional Christian views on the subject.^[6]

Types of supersessionism

Both Christian and Jewish theologians have identified different types of supersessionism in Christian reading of the Bible.

Punitive, Economic and Structural supersessionism

R. Kendall Soulen notes three categories of supersessionism identified by Christian theologians: punitive, economic, and structural.^[7]

• Punitive supersessionism is represented by such Christian thinkers as Hippolytus, Origen, and Luther. It is the view that Jews who reject Jesus as the Jewish Messiah are consequently condemned by God, forfeiting the promises otherwise due to them under the covenants.

• Economic supersessionism does not refer to money; rather it 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."^[8] Soulen's terminology is used by Craig A. Blaising, in 'The Future of Israel as a Theological Question.'^[9] See also Biblical law in Christianity, Antinomianism, Progressive revelation (Christian), and Marcionism.

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.

Soft and hard supersessionism

Jewish theologian and rabbinic scholar David Novak suggests that there are three options:^[10]

1. The new covenant is an extension of the old covenant.
2. The new covenant is an addition to the old covenant.
3. The new covenant is a replacement for the old covenant.

He observes, "In the early Church, it seems, the new covenant presented by the Apostolic Writings (better known as diatheke ekaine or novum testamentum) was either taken to be an addition to the old covenant (the religion of the Torah and Jewish Pharisaic tradition), or it was taken to be a replacement for the old covenant.”^[11]

Novak considers both understandings to be supersessionist. He designates the first as "soft supersessionism" and the second as "hard supersessionism." The former "does not assert that God terminated the covenant of Exodus-Sinai with the Jewish people. Rather, it asserts that Jesus came to fulfill the promise of the old covenant, first for those Jews already initiated into the covenant, who then accepted his messiahhood as that covenant's fulfillment. And, it asserts that Jesus came to both initiate and fulfill the promise of the covenant for those Gentiles whose sole connection to the covenant is through him. Hence, in this kind of supersessionism, those Jews who do not accept Jesus' messiahhood are still part of the covenant in the sense of 'what God has put together let no man put asunder' [emphasis original]."^[10] See also Dual-covenant theology.

Hard supersessionism, on the other hand, asserts that "[t]he old covenant is dead. The Jews by their sins, most prominently their sin of rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, have forfeited any covenantal status."^[10] The hard supersessionists base their views on the bible passages found in Matthew 21:42-46 and Romans 9:1-7. See also Antinomianism.

This classification provides mutually exclusive options. Hard supersessionism implies both punitive and economic supersessionism; soft supersessionism does not fall into any of the three classes recognized as supersessionist by Christian theologians; instead it is associated with Jewish Christianity.

Christian views

The early Christian theologians saw the New Covenant in Christ as a replacement for the Mosaic Covenant (see "Roman Catholicism", below). Historically, statements on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church have claimed her ecclesiastical structures to be a fulfillment and replacement of Jewish ecclesiastical structures (see also Jerusalem as an allegory for the Church). As recently as 1965 Vatican Council II affirmed, "the Church is the new people of God," without intending to make "Israel according to the flesh", the Jewish people, irrelevant in terms of eschatology (see "Roman Catholicism, below). Modern Catholicism affirms these spokesmen as authoritative for doctrine, alongside the New Testament. Modern Protestants hold to a range of positions, some with more emphasis on continuity (covenant theology) and others with more emphasis on discontinuity (dispensationalism and New Covenant Theology).

The Jewish–Christian dialog has changed dramatically since the early centuries. In the first century Gentile (non-Jewish) inclusion was the significant issue, see Circumcision controversy in early Christianity, while two millennia later Jewish exclusion is the issue (though Jewish exclusion may have begun as early as the exclusion of Jews from Aelia Capitolina c.135,^{[citation needed]} see also Jewish Bishops of Jerusalem and Anti-Judaism).

The New Testament repeatedly gives Jews priority, as in Jesus' expression of his central mission as being to the Jews rather than Gentiles^[12] and in Paul's formula "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile."^[13] 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,^[14] 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 of Tarsus and Judaism is still disputed today.

Church fathers

Many Early Christian commentators taught that the Old Covenant was fulfilled and replaced (superseded) by the New Covenant in Christ, for instance:

• Justin Martyr (about 100 to 165): "For the true spiritual Israel ... are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ."^[15]
• Hippolytus of Rome (martyred 13 August 235): "[The Jews] have been darkened in the eyes of your soul with a darkness utter and everlasting."^[16]
• Tertullian (ca.160 – ca.220 AD): “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.”^[17]

Augustine (354–430) follows these views of the earlier Church Fathers, but he emphasizes the importance to Christianity of the continued existence of the Jewish people: "The Jews ... are thus by their own Scriptures a testimony to us that we have not forged the prophecies about Christ."^[18] Jeremy Cohen,^[19] followed by John Y. B. Hood and James Carroll,^[20] 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."^[21]

Various forms of supersessionism have been the mainstream Christian interpretation of the New Testament since the inception of all three main historical traditions within Christianity — Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant.

Roman Catholicism

Supersessionism is not the name of any official Roman Catholic doctrine and the word appears in no Church documents; however, the Catholic Church does officially teach that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church does not teach that the Jewish people themselves are effectively irrelevant in terms of eschatology and Biblical prophecy.^[23] For the Catholic Church, the Jewish people are a reminder that the “gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).^[24] The Church recognizes an ongoing and unique relationship between the Jewish people, God and the Church.^[25] Additionally, the Church teaches that there is an integral continuity between the covenants rather than a rupture.^[26]

The Church’s teaching regarding the fulfillment and replacement of the Mosaic Covenant by the New Covenant in Christ can be found in the Scriptures, the Fathers and various Magisterial documents:

Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical Mystici corporis (1943) states: 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. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” (paragraph 29)

In Lumen Gentium (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). 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.”

While acting as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict XVI wrote: “God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken . . . . The conditional covenant, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant in which God binds himself irrevocably.”^[27]

Protestant

Protestant views on supersessionism revolve around their understanding of the relationship between the various covenants of the Bible, particularly the relationship between the covenants of the Old Testament and the New Covenant. The most prominent Protestant views on this relationship are called Law and Gospel, Covenant theology, New Covenant Theology, and Dispensationalism. These views are not restricted to a single denomination.

Mormonism

The Latter Day Saint movement rejects supersessionism. According to the Book of Mormon, during his post-resurrection visit to the Americas, Christ tells his audience "[F]or behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto [the Jews], and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn."^[28]

Jewish view

From a Jewish perspective, however, the Torah was given to the Jewish people as an eternal covenant (for example Exo 31:16-17, Exo 12:14-15) and will never be replaced or added to (for example Deut 4:2, 13:1), and hence Judaism rejects supersessionism as contrary to the Hebrew Bible at best (see also Antinomianism) and antisemitic at worst. For Judaism and other critics, supersessionism is a theology of replacement, which substitutes the Christian church, consisting of Christians, for the Jewish and B'nei Noah people. Some modern Jews are offended by the traditional Christian belief in supersessionism,^[29] and Padraic O'Hare sees supersessionism as one source of anti-Semitism in Western culture.^[30]

See also

• Anti-Judaism
• Christian views on the old covenant
• Naskh (exegesis)#External naskh (abrogation)
• Tahrif

Notes

Further reading

• Vlach, Michael J. The Church as a Replacement of Israel: An Analysis of Supersessionism. PhD Dissertation. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004.
• Charles D. Provan. The Church Is Israel Now: The Transfer Of Conditional Privilege. ISBN 978-1-879998-39-1 (supports supersessionism)
• Calvin L. Smith, ed. The Jews, Modern Israel and the New Supercessionism: Resources for Christians (King's Divinity Press, 2009). ISBN 978-0-9562006-0-0 (challenges supersessionism)

External links

Look up supersessionism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Michael Forrest and David Palm, "All in the Family: Christians, Jews and God", Laywitness magazine, July–August, 2009. An article opposing "extreme" supersessionism and dual covenant theology.
• "Why Catholics for Israel?" an article by Catholics opposing supersessionism.
• Michael J. Vlach. Supersession Info Page (opposing supersessionism)
• "The Attacks of Replacement Theology" (opposing supersessionism)
• Mikael Knighton. "False Gospel: Supersessionism (Replacement Theology)" (opposing supersessionism)