Is the Doctrine of Supersessionism Antisemitic?

Supersessionism (also called Replacement Theology or Substitution Theory) is the idea that Christianity has superseded Judaism, and replaced it as the (single) path to salvation. There are varying nuances and subtly different versions of Supersessionism, so it is perhaps more accurate to think of it as a perspective, rather than as a specific theory.

In 2015, the Vatican said that Supersessionism represented the standard way for medieval thinkers to view Christianity’s relationship to Judaism (see “The Gifts and Calling of God Are Irrevocable,” 17).

One of the common elements of Supersessionist perspectives is a negative appraisal of Judaism, at least in comparison to Christianity. This raises the question of whether Supersessionism is a form of Christian Antisemitism.

1. Antisemitism

A widely used definition of Antisemitism states:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance)

This IHRA working definition has been adopted by around 38 countries, and also by a number of non-governmental organizations. However, concerns have been expressed at the UN that it could be misused to inappropriately shield the actions of the government of Israel from criticism (see Jerusalem Post, 1 Nov 2022).

Thus, on the 3 Nov 2022, a group of academics called on the UN to adopt the Jerusalem Declaration instead. Its definition states:

Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).

This definition makes the point that Antisemitism is the unreasonable unfairness of discrimination. So, criticizing the government of Israel cannot be Antisemitism if it is appealing to factors (such as Human Rights) which apply equally to other governments.

Clearly there are complexities in applying definitions of Antisemitism. As a result, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) has noted that the particular context and form of expression can be an essential element in determining whether a specific claim is Antisemitic or not.

What this means is that whilst few, if anyone, could deny that there is a type of wrongdoing called “Antisemitism,” it is also clear that there are complexities which have led to ongoing disagreements about aspects of its exemplification.

2. Religious Antisemitism

Religious Antisemitism is a specific type of Antisemitism which focuses upon religious concepts and ideas.

An example of this might include the accusation of deicide (or the ongoing blood curse) whereby all Jews are blamed for the murder of Jesus Christ (see Matthew 27:25). It is clearly an unfair and unreasonable accusation to accuse Jews born today of an action that happened 2000 years ago. So that accusation is an example of Antisemitism.

But what about the doctrine of Christian Uniqueness, which claims that “there is no salvation outside the Church”? One exclusivist interpretation of that claim might imply that no Jews can be saved, unless they become Christians. That interpretation would also imply the same spiritual consequences to Muslims, Hindus (etc.).

Is an exclusivist view of Christian Uniqueness an Antisemitic doctrine? It could be uttered with a hatred, which would make it Antisemitism under the IHRA definition. But it is not singling out Jews as the Jerusalem Declaration requires, as it makes the same claims about Islam, Hinduism, etc.

Clearly, a claim of Christian Uniqueness could be pressed in a way that made it explicitly Antisemitic, especially if its pan-religious implications were ignored and turned into a discrimination against Judaism alone. That would be (Religious) Antisemitism.

But just because a claim like Christian Uniqueness can be misused and turned into an instance of Antisemitism, that does not mean that the claim is an inherent instance of (Religious) Antisemitism. A claim would only become inherently Antisemitic if its expression must (always) involve Antisemitism.

These considerations focus the question which must be asked of the doctrine of Supersessionism. Is it a claim which can be abused to involve Antisemitism, or is inherently Antisemitic because its expression means that it must (always) involve Antisemitism?

3. Abrogationist Supersessionism

This is the claim that Christianity has replaced Judaism, so Judaism has been abrogated and abolished. It assumes that Christianity is an entirely new religion, filling the gap left by the ending of Judaism.

A version of this perspective can be found in the second-century heresy of Marcionism. Its rejection of Judaism was so extreme that it even refused to use the Old Testament.

Abrogationist models tend to jump to an illogical conclusion. They start by stressing that Judaism was essential to salvation before Jesus. Then they note that faith in Jesus (John 14:6) and baptism (Mark 16:16) is now spiritually necessary for Salvation. And so they conclude that Judaism has been replaced and that it must therefore now be obsolete or useless.

But that conclusion does not follow. A non-necessity is not a uselessness. Christians can see this by reflecting on the prayer known as the Rosary. Praying the Rosary has never been considered necessary for salvation, and yet it has been strongly endorsed by many popes as spiritually useful.

What this means is that even if Christianity has replaced the previous Jewish criteria for salvation, some other reasoning (or prejudice) is required before people can conclude that Judaism is (or should be) abolished. Arguably, the gap in rationality of Abrogationist Supersessionism has all too often been filled with Antisemitism.

4. Fulfillment Supersessionism

At the opposite pole of versions of Supersesionism, is a view which can be called Fulfillment (or Supplementary) Supersessionism.

This model accepts and values the continuity between Judaism and Christianity, so it treasures the Old Testament.

But the model also insists that some elements of the Mosaic covenant have nevertheless been replaced. For example, it considers that Temple animal sacrifice was replaced by the superior sacrifice of Jesus’ death (Hebrews 9). Ultimately, Christianity is a New Covenant (Matthew 26:28) but this version of Supersessionism sees its newness as a deepening and supplementing of the original covenant, rather than as an abrogation of it.

Arguably, this model of Supersessionism can be found in the First-Century Christianity, which existed in Jerusalem. The Acts of the Apostles clearly states that there were “many thousands of believers… who are all zealous observers of the [Jewish] law” (Acts 21:20). This means that the earliest form of Christianity may have been almost indistinguishable from contemporary Judaism.

If Fulfillment Supersessionism can be compatible with esteeming and practising the core tenets of Judaism, it is difficult to view it as singling out Judaism with a discriminatory negativity. This raises the question of whether it can fairly and reasonably be considered as a form of Antisemitism.

5. Punishment Supersessionism

When advocates of Supersessionism have tried to give a rationale for it, this has created further differentiations in the models of Supersessionism.

Punishment Supersessionism is the view that Christianity’s replacement of Judaism is a divine punishment. According to that view, (some) Jews refused to accept Christ as the Messiah, and so God has punished (all) Jews by abrogating Judaism and replacing it with Christianity.

This perspective has often appealed to historical events as evidence of God’s displeasure. This includes the Roman destruction of the Temple (70 AD) and the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem, following the Bar Kokhba revolt (132 AD).

But Punishment Supersessionism faces two clear problems. Firstly it uses the Problem of Evil in an irrationally selective way. Why should the Jewish loss of Jerusalem to the Romans be a sign of God’s rejection of the Jews, whilst the Christian loss of Jerusalem in the Crusades is not a sign of God’s rejection of Christianity?

Secondly, Punishment Supersessionism is appealing to the same kind of unreasonable and unfair collectivized guilt as that which underlies accusations of deicide (see Section 2). Jews born today cannot be guilty of events that happened before they were born. To suggest otherwise is precisely the discriminatory unfairness of Antisemitism.

6. Providence Supersessionism

Providence Supersessionism appeals to a very different rationale. It insists that Supersessionism has got nothing to do with the conduct of Jewish people, because God always planned for a supersession to occur.

Thus, the Seven Commandments of the Noahide Covenant (Genesis 9) was superseded by the Mosaic Covenant containing the Law of Moses. Then that was superseded by Jesus’ New Covenant, as the next step in God’s providential plan.

Advocates of Providence Supersessionism argue that it is not inherently anti-Jewish. In fact it explicitly values its Jewish heritage. Yes, it has changed aspects of that Jewish heritage, but then Christianity has also changed aspects of its own heritage, such as ancient commitments to Pacifism. Change need not imply denigration, so Supersessionism need not imply Antisemitism.

Even if critics of Supersessionism accept that Providential models can be stated in a way that is not Antisemitic, they sometimes urge that Supersessionism always ends up being practically Antisemitic in its pastoral implementation.

7. Theological Suppressionism

Questions about the practical implementation of Supersessionism raise another set of issues which we can think of as Suppressionism.

(Theological) Suppressionism is the view that the practice of Christianity is incompatible with Jewish practices, due to conflicting faith expressions embedded theologically in those practices. So, Jewish culture and heritage must be suppressed if, or when, Jews become Christians.

An articulation of this view can be found in St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274). Although there are differing interpretations of Aquinas’ views about Judaism (see Matthew Levering), he essentially taught that the practice of elements of Judaism was gravely sinful (Summa Theologiae 1-2, q.103, a.4).

At the risk of oversimplifying, Aquinas’ views were based on a philosophy of meaning, which claimed that words and actions had necessary implications. He viewed Judaism as a religion which was waiting for the Messiah. Jesus was the Messiah. So, to practice Judaism after Jesus’ coming, is to sinfully reject Jesus by implying that the Messiah has not yet come.

Modern philosophers recognize that meaning is more complex than Aquinas allowed for. The idea of language games shows that people can use identical words and actions to affirm different, and even contradictory beliefs. Thus, there are Christian Atheists who profess creeds, with a very different meaning to their words and actions than theist Christians affirm.

This suggests that it is not philosophically accurate to say that practising elements of Judaism must necessarily involve a sinful denial of the core tenets of Christianity. A growing understanding of the concept of “invincible ignorance” shows that that view is also theologically implausible.

What this means is that Suppressionism is no longer accepted by most Christians.

But, because Suppressionism was accepted in the medieval era, alongside Supersessionism, then it is all too easy to mistakenly confuse Suppressionism’s eradication of Jewish culture and heritage, as if that were a practical implication of Supersessionism.

8. Pragmatic Suppressionism

Another version of Suppressionism can be found in the injunctions of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). Commenting on Jewish converts to Christianity, it commanded that force should be used to prevent them retaining any practices from their previous Jewish heritage (Lateran IV, 70).

This may have been a concern prompted about syncretistic confusion of the faiths, or about converts lapsing back to their former faith. It may even have been a concern about spiritual hedging, where converts retain aspects of their former religion “just in case…”

Whatever the thinking, the effect of this Suppressionism was arguably a destruction of Jewish heritage and culture where there were large numbers of converts to Christianity.

Modern Christians do not see a need for Lateran IV’s ban. As a result there are modern Hebrew Catholics and Jews for Jesus, who combine their Christian faith with expressions of Judaism, as aspects of first-century Jewish Christianity did.

If Suppressionism is rejected, then there is no reason why a Christian could not be Supersessionist, whilst also valuing the practices of Judaism as a reminder of God’s salvific interventions in history.

9. Conclusion

It is clear that some theologians think that Supersessionism is an irredeemable expression of Antisemitism. Timothy Jackson (2021) described the doctrine as a “moral turpitude.” And the Society for Post-Supersessionist Theology has expressed itself very strongly that Supersessionism should have no place within modern Christianity.

It is clear that some versions of Supersessionism can and do involve Antisemitism. However, this does not mean that all versions of Supersessionism must necessarily involve expressions of Antisemitism. This is particularly so when the effects of Suppressionism are distinguished and separated from Supersessionism.

What this means is that Supersessionist claims must always be judged on their own merits, and in their own contexts, rather than simply assuming that they must always count as a form of Antisemitism. Otherwise, there is a risk of fighting one form of prejudice by simply imposing a different prejudice.

See tomorrow: “Did Vatican II Change the Doctrine of Supersessionism?”