Introduction
Supersessionism, also known as replacement theology, is a Christian doctrine that asserts that the New Covenant supersedes the Old Covenant. It establishes the current status of the Christian Church in relation to the Jewish people and Judaism, claiming that it has succeeded the Israelites as the definitive people of God. Supersessionism has been the main underlying concept of the Christian Church for the majority of its existence. It became the foundation of antisemitism, and over the last 2000 years, it has cost the lives of millions of Jews at the hands of people who considered themselves to be Christians. Now supersessionism is believed to be a flawed theory based on an incorrect way of interpreting the Scriptures. Multiple evidence suggests that replacement theology is a departure from authentic biblical Christianity and should be rejected by the Church.
Historical Origins of Supersessionism
The history of replacement theology can be traced back to the very beginning of the Christian Church. Originally, the Church was a Jewish institution founded in Judea by Jews who were followers of a Jewish Messiah; its founding documents were written by Jews, and the first generation of Christians was Jewish (Reagan, “The Evil of Replacement Theology” para. 26). However, as the apostles and disciples began to spread the new religion throughout other nations, the Church embraced more Gentiles and gradually lost touch with its Jewish roots.
Separation of the Jews from the Gentiles
In the year 66 A.D., the Jews revolted against the Roman occupation, which resulted in a long war during which Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Jews were expelled from the city. As a result, the Jews began to hate the Romans, and the Romans, respectively, began to hate the Jews, and both parties hated the Jews who believed in Jesus, or Messianic Jews (Lazarus para. 2). The latter refused to fight against Rome, convinced that this rebellion was not ordered by God but was God’s judgment against the Jews for their unbelief (Lazarus para. 3). As a result, the Jews blamed them for the defeat and declared to remove them from the people of Israel. However, they were still regarded as Jews by the Romans, and persecuted accordingly.
Persecution of Jews
When in the 4th century, Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the most prominent leaders turned to express prejudice and contempt toward the Jews. Justifying their antisemitism, Christian theologians began to teach that the Jews held sole responsibility for the death of Christ. Consequently, many Christians started to believe that they could show their loyalty to Jesus by expressing their hatred toward the Lord’s murderers (Hilsden para. 7). Over the century, an anti-Jewish climate developed throughout the Roman Empire, and the ties between the Gentile and the Jews broke.
With the approval of the Church Fathers, the emperors started to enact the claims against the Jews and Judaism into law. In 325 A.D., the Council of Nicea, presided over by Emperor Constantine, introduced legislation that prohibited Christians from following the Torah and observing the Sabbath and the Festivals, including the Passover (Silver para. 9). In the edict of Milan in 313 A.D., synagogues were outlawed (Reagan, “The Evil of Replacement Theory” para. 36). As the Church became more dominant, further laws were passed that excluded Jews from holding high office or serving in the military and prohibited conversion to Judaism (Reagan, “The Evil of Replacement Theory” para. 35). The biblical calendar system was removed, as were the traditional Jewish feasts and holy days, and the Jewish liturgy. By the beginning of the 5th century, the Roman Empire was cleansed of all things Jewish, and the Jews have been demonized and ostracized to the point that the Church had become a Gentile organization.
Foundation of Supersessionism
Around the year 200 A.D., a new theological conviction, supersessionism, or replacement theology, emerged to rationalize and justify what was already happening. When Rome crushed the Jewish rebellion, the Christians started to believe they saw God’s hand of judgment against the Jews (Wagner para. 27). In the 4th century, the church leader and historian Eusebius, together with an assembly of bishops and Emperor Constantine, formed a church-state alliance. Eusebius considered the unified Church and Empire to be the Kingdom of God on earth. (Teamjij para. 4). In an attempt to define themselves as the true inheritors of Israel’s relationship with God, Gentile Christians became determined to eradicate the Jewish people from God’s plans and distance themselves from Christianity’s Jewish origins (Krewson para. 9). The Early Church, which was clearly and undeniably Jewish, was described as “primitive, unenlightened, and beset by erroneous notions that were carryovers from ancient Judaism” (Hendrick 2). The theory of supersessionism emerged to justify the believes and events of that time and establish the power of the newly formed Christian Church.
Supersessionism
The Doctrine of Supersessionism
The term “supersessionism” is not used in theological literature, although the concept has dominated the history of Christian theology for many centuries. Supersessionism, also known as “replacement theology,” is a doctrine that claims that the Christian Church has replaced Israel as the people of God (Lambert, “Getting to the Heart of Replacement Theology” para. 4). Because the nation of Israel did not accept Jesus as Messiah, it forfeited its position as God’s favorite, and the Church became the rightful heir to the blessings once promised to Israel (Hilsden para. 6). From God’s perspective, the Jews are now no more significant than any other nation, and until they repent, come to faith in Jesus, and join the Church, they have no future.
According to Reagan, the argument is usually formulated as follows:
“Since the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah, God rejected them. He poured out His wrath upon them, scattered them all over the earth, and transferred the promises made to them to ‘Spiritual Israel,’ the Church. God has no purpose left for the Jews. The re-establishment of modern-day Israel is, therefore, merely an accident of history with no spiritual meaning” (“The Error of Replacement Theology” para. 2).
The main ideas on which modern supersessionism is based are that God has only one people, and it is the Church, and the Old Testament prophecies must not be applied to Israel but rather to the Church. The Christian Church is viewed as “spiritual Israel” and “spiritual Jerusalem” (Wright para. 3). The Jewish people are no longer seen as “chosen people” and are no different from any other group, such as English, Spanish, or Africans (Wagner para. 4). They have no special place in God’s plan and no God-given right to the land.
Concerning the future of Israel, supersessionists distinguish between the ideas of salvation and restoration. Salvation means that many Jews will believe in Jesus Christ and be saved (Vlach 65). The concept of restoration includes the idea that Jews “will be replanted in their land and given a unique role and mission to the nations of the world” (Rosenstern para. 13). Most supersessionists believe that there will be future salvation of Israel, but the nation of Israel will never be restored.
Foundations of Supersessionism
The ideas of supersessionism were largely formulated by the early Church Fathers: Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas. Justin Martyr was the first to identify the Church as Israel (Rosenstern para. 14). Origen, an early Christian scholar, said, “The Jews were abandoned altogether, and possess now none of what were considered their ancient glories, so that there is no indication of any Divinity abiding amongst them” (qtd. in Rosenstern para. 15). Other theologists argued that all the Bible prophecies concerning Israel are fulfilled, symbolically and spiritually, by the Church.
Supersessionism is based on the method of studying the Scriptures known as allegorization. To allegorize means to view every detail in the text as symbolic of deeper spiritual meanings (Hilsden para. 10). Origen analyzed the passage from Matthew where Jesus enters Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives upon a donkey and a colt (Mat. 21). He concluded that the donkey symbolized the harshness of the Old Testament while the colt, a gentler animal, was symbolic of the New Testament, which led him to a conclusion that “Church is Israel” (Hilsden para. 13). Allegorization has been widely used for interpreting the Scriptures for centuries, making the interpreters free to fill the Bible with any meanings to support their belief system. This led to the interpretation of the Bible becoming the fuel that energized antisemitism. As Lambert defines it, “supersessionism, at its core, involves a way of reading the Bible that transfers promises that were made to the Jewish people over to the Church” (“A Blow to Replacement Theology” para. 3). By incorrectly interpreting the Bible, the Church Fathers created a theory to justify their beliefs, establishing a theological ground for antisemitism.
Variations of Supersessionism
Several variations of supersessionism can be identified throughout the history of the Church. “Punitive” or “retributive” supersessionism, common during the early era, claims that God punished Israel for not accepting Jesus Christ as Messiah (Rosenstern para. 3). It was the belief held by Martin Luther, who regarded the destruction of Jerusalem as proof of God’s permanent rejection of the Jews (Rodenstern para. 4). This idea was later used by Adolf Hitler to convince many Roman Catholics and Protestants to support the extermination of Jews during World War II.
“Economic” supersessionism gives emphasis to the idea of the Church as the successor of Israel. It suggests that it was God’s plan from the beginning for the people of God to morph from an ethnic group (Israel) into a universal group (church) (Vlach 61). Israel’s role in history is believed to have been expired when Jesus Christ came, and the Christian Church was established (Rosenstern para. 6). In contrast to punitive supersessionism, the economic theory placed emphasis not on Israel’s disobedience but rather on its role in history.
The third variation, “structural” supersessionism, is concerned with the unity of the Christian canon. It focuses on the idea of God as a redeemer and renders the Hebrew Scriptures largely indecisive for shaping Christian convictions about God’s work in redemption (Vlach 64). God’s identity as the God of Israel and His history with the Jewish people are regarded to be indecisive for the Christian conception of God.
Overall, it can be concluded that supersessionism was not established as a unified theory and has variations within it. Its popularity can be explained by its relevance to the historical and social events that produced it and the well-developed theoretical reasoning behind it. Supersessionism is a natural by-product of allegorization, it seems to be backed up by history, and it appears logical and consistent with God’s character of justice (Hilsden para. 8). It is a powerful theory that appealed to many people when it was established and became the foundation of the Christian Church for many centuries.
Arguments Against Supersessionism
Supersessionism is now regarded as a flawed theory that led to the development of antisemitism and the death of millions of people all over the world. Multiple arguments can be provided to prove that it used an incorrect method of interpretation and political motives to make Christians believe in something that is “unwholesome and harmful” (Paterson 9). The three arguments presented below are the proof of the love of God towards the Jewish people, the metaphor of the olive tree, and the suffering of the Jews.
First Argument: Love of God
The first argument is that, although the Jews provoked God’s anger, they were not rejected by Him. This argument is explained by Dr. David R. Reagan in the article “The Error of Replacement Theory.” He claims that there is no doubt that God poured out His wrath on the Jewish people in response to their rejection of Jesus as their Messiah, but, nevertheless, He still loves them (Reagan, “The Error of Replacement Theory” para. 5-6). Isaiah proclaimed that God could never forget Israel because He has them “inscribed on the palms of His hands” (The Holy Bible, Isa. 49.14-16), and Jeremiah stated that the Jewish people would exist as a nation forever (The Holy Bible, Jer. 31.36). In chapters 9 to 11 of the New Testament, Apostle Paul uses the Jewish people as the quintessential example of God’s grace. He claims that despite their history of rebellion against God’s will, God still loves them and had a purpose for them (The Holy Bible, Rom. 9-11). This proves that the view of the Jews as a rejected nation is thoroughly unbiblical.
Second Argument: The Metaphor of the Olive Tree
The metaphor used by Apostle Paul in the Bible can be regarded as the second argument against supersessionism. In Romans 11, Apostle Paul addresses the subject of the Jewish and the Gentile inclusion in the people of God using the illustration of the olive tree (The Holy Bible, Rom. 11). It proposes that the olive tree and the process of its rejuvenation picture the restoration of Israel and the addition of the Gentiles into God’s people on the basis of the fulfillment of God’s promises in Christ. According to the teachings, the mystery of the olive tree is that “the partial hardening of Israel’s heart was not to condemn eternally nor to annihilate God’s chosen nation” (“Mystery of the Olive Tree” para. 46). It was “to preserve a remnant of the Jewish people according to His grace by the covenant of faith He made with Abraham” (‘Mystery of the Olive Tree” para. 46). Therefore, Israel is not condemned despite its disobedience, God’s disapproval of the nation is temporary, and all the promises will be fulfilled, which proves that replacement theory is not true.
Third Argument: The History of the Jews
The second argument against replacement theology is the history of the Jewish people. Over the last 2,000 years since the destruction of Jerusalem in the 1st century, the Jews have witnessed an incredible amount of suffering. Their city and temples were destroyed, and they were exiled from their land and scattered across the Roman Empire. They have been hated by the Christians for many centuries. During the Crusades, the mobs burned Jews alive in their houses from France to Jerusalem (Hilsden para. 30). Martin Luther, who was initially sympathetic to the Jews, turned against them and advocated for their expulsion from Germany and the destruction of synagogues (Hilsden para. 32). The Nazis, having come to power, killed millions of Jews in concentration camps during World War II. However, despite all this, the Jews managed to arise from the ashes of the Holocaust and establish a sovereign state on the very same land they lost 2,000 years ago.
The history of the Jewish people provides a strong argument against replacement theology. While some people believe that their suffering is proof that God has rejected them, it needs to be taken into consideration that replacement theology is more of a cause rather than an effect of it (Hilsden para. 35). According to Hilsden, “the continued existence of the Jewish race in spite of numerous persecutions and threats and attempts at genocide throughout Jewish history is evidence of Divine intervention” (para. 37). Despite being stripped of their homeland and scattered across the earth, they have survived as a distinct nation, which can be regarded as a serious argument against replacement theology.
Conclusion
Supersessionism, or replacement theology, originated two thousand years ago when the Christian Church was founded. Guided by the political and religious motives, the Church Fathers developed a theory that allowed the emperors of the Roman Empire to eradicate the Jews and establish the Church that they could rule. Based on the incorrect interpretation of the Bible, supersessionism claimed that Jews could no longer be regarded as the people of God, and the Church is the only rightful heir to the blessings promised to Israel.
Replacement theology developed into antisemitism and, over the centuries, has led to the deaths of millions of people all over the world. It is now considered a flawed theory that should be rejected by the Church. The first argument against it is connected with the claim that the Jews were rejected by God. The analysis of the Bible shows that it is not true, and God still loves Jews and has a purpose for them. The second argument is based on the interpretation of the metaphor of the olive tree. It illustrates that Israel is not condemned, and God’s disapproval of the nation is temporary. The third argument is connected to the history of Jews. The fact that despite many hardships and suffering, the Jews have survived as a distinct nation and regained their land shows that God did not want them to be eliminated. These arguments prove that placement theology should be rejected by the Church as based on hatred, ignorance, and lack of understanding of the Biblical principles.
Works Cited
Hendrick, Gary. “Replacement Theology: Its Origins, Teachings and Errors.”
Hilsden, Wayne. “Replacement Theology — Fact or Fiction?” Ron Cantor, 2014. Web.
The Holy Bible: Old and New Testaments, King James Version. Floating Press, 2009.
Krewson, William. “The Roots of Replacement Theology.” Israel My Glory.
Lambert, Ryan. “A Blow to Replacement Theology.” First Fruits of Zion, 2018.
—. “Getting to the Heart of Replacement Theology.” First Fruits of Zion, 2017.
Lazarus, David. “How the Church Became Israel: The History of Replacement Theology.” Israel Today.
yHouse of David Ministries, 2017.
Peterson Galen. “Israel and the Church: Tragedy and Blessing.” American Remnant Mission, 2014.
Reagan, David R. “The Error of Replacement Theology.” Lamb and Lion Ministries.
—. “The Evil of Replacement Theory.” Lamb and Lion Ministries.
Rosenstern, John. “Supersessionism.” Frances & Friends.
Silver, David. “How Did Replacement Theology Come About?” Kehila News, 2021. Web.
Teamjij. “Replacement Theology.” Jerusalem Institute of Justice, 2018.
Vlach, Michael J. “Various Forms of Replacement Theology.” The Master’s Seminary, vol. 20, no, 1, 2009, 57-69.
Wagner, Clarence H. “The Error of Replacement Theology.”
Wright, Fred. “The Six Errors of Replacement Theology.” Prophecy Today UK, 2019.
Between World Wars: Dada And Surrealism Movements
I performed a virtual tour of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) through the organization’s website. The top part of the homepage displays a bold statement in white with a black background reading, “We look forward to seeing you!” I wish I would have visited the museum physically, but I promise to honor the invite in the future to witness and experience the art masterpiece stored in there. While scrolling down the homepage, I was amazed by the theme especially the colors. The page also strikingly displays several pictures of modern art. The left side of the homepage is written “Change Is Modern” in black with a yellow background (MoMA, n.d.-b). There are several works that have been displayed on the homepage starting with Guadalupe Maravilla’s Luz y fuerza (MoMA, n.d.-b), which is shown in figure 1 below;
The images are so captivating, it may take more time to look at every piece of artwork displayed through the website. The main aim of visiting MoMA albeit online, is to study the works of art in the DADA movement and Surrealism movement. After studying the suggested literature by Frank on the chapter of Artforms titled: “Early Twentieth Century”, I choose to search for the works by DADA (Marcel Duchamp) and Surrealism (Salvador Dali).
Marcel Duchamp (1887–1968) is an American artist born in France. He joined the Dadaist movement and is regarded as the most radical member all through the twentieth century. The DADA movement emerged out of the desire to end the end the horrors of World War I. His main approach to art involved converting mass-produced items into a form of artwork, earning the name ready-mades. MoMA lists a total of 101 exhibitions and 160 works attributable to Marcel Duchamp. Out of his many works listed on the MoMA website, my attention is attracted to the painting labelled Raoul Hausman, The Spirit of our Time that was done in 1919 (MoMA, n.d.-a). This is illustrated in figure 2 below;
The image is an expression of Raoul Hausman who anticipated the rise of artificial intelligence, mp3 players, and headset radios. It symbolizes the emptiness of the human mind due to the evolution of technology that has taken over a lot of functions initially performed by people. Marcel Duchamp evokes the desire people have to understand themselves, but are brought down by dependence on technology. He wonders whether the human actions of mass production have turned human creatures into empty-headed robots whose work is simply to receive information and transmit it without thinking about its implication.
The other category of comparable artists conglomerate under the name Surrealism movement. The movement was formed in the 1920’s in objection against the bearing of European culture. Their main contest was that modern development in science, developments, and thinking was eroding European’s consciousness. Their thinking was based on the philosophy of Sigmund Freud. One of the prominent members of the movement is Salvador Dali (1904–1989), a Spanish artist. His work was mainly based on imagery, earning the name representational surrealism. MoMA lists a total of 84 exhibition and 102 works attributable to Salvador Dali, out of which my attention is attracted to the painting labelled The Persistence of Memory that was done in 1931 (MoMA, n.d.-c), which is shown in figure 3 below. In this painting, Salvador Dalí recreated the nightmares he was experiencing in an illusionist way based on his academic understanding (MoMA, n.d.-c). The head-like painting in the foreground represents an image of misplaced humanity.
References
Frank, P. (2010). Prebles’ artforms: An introduction to the visual arts. (10th e.d.). Pearson.
MoMA. (n.d.-a). Marcel Duchamp. The Spirit of our Time, 1919| MoMA. The Museum of Modern Art. Web.
MoMA. (n.d.-b). MoMA. The Museum of Modern Art. Web.
MoMA. (n.d.-c). Salvador Dalí. The Persistence of Memory, 1931| MoMA. The Museum of Modern Art. Web.
Mastery Of Language As A Reflection Of Person’s Mental Abilities
The notion that people who have lived in a country for some time and still struggle with the language do not understand the realities of this country is not new. The idea that the inability to speak the language fluently handicaps an individual in all spheres of life is deeply rooted in the public’s mind. In her essay “Mother tongue,” Amy Tan discusses the problems individuals with poor command of English face due to such perception (291). Giving as an example her mother, whose native language is Chinese, Tan describes attitudes her family faced due to her mother’s “broken English” (291). The author says that there are different kinds of English, including academic English and “simple” English (291). No matter what English an individual speaks, communication should be built on mutual respect and recognition principles.
This paper argues that Tan asserts the following idea throughout her essay: the level of language doesn’t reflect the broadness of a person’s mind and outlook. The mastery of English or any other language is one of an individual’s competencies, like any other. Poor command of English shouldn’t restrict a person’s social contacts nor his ability to deal with this or that problem.
A typical assumption that people who have a poor command of the language are less intelligent than their more literate counterparts is groundless. Tan gives as an example her mother and states: “You should know that my mother’s expressive command of English belies how much she understands. She reads the Forbes report, listens to Wall Street Week, converses daily with her stockbroker, reads Shirley MacLaine’s books with ease—all kinds of things I can’t begin to understand” (291). Tan lets the readers understand that the mastery of English doesn’t mirror a person’s knowledge and abilities in other spheres (291). Language can’t be the measurement for the intellectual level.
The mastery of English doesn’t reflect a person’s abilities in a linguistic sphere as well. Tan confides that she was told to steer away from writing and devote herself to accounting management (291). Moreover, most Asian-American students engage in math or other exact sciences, and very few of them choose literature and languages as a profession. This can be explained by the fact that these students do significantly better in math tests than in English. In her essay, Tan writes, “This makes me think that there are other Asian-American students whose English spoken in the home might also be described as “broken” or “limited.” And perhaps they also have teachers who are steering them away from writing and into math and science, which is what happened to me” (291). The assumptions that language level reflects an individual’s aptitude for this and that profession prove to be baseless and shouldn’t determine an individual’s choice of career.
General inferences about people with poor command of English are not only unjustified; they lower these individuals’ quality of life. Tan illustrates this with the example of her mother and says, “People in department stores, at banks, and in restaurants did not take [mother] seriously, did not give her good service, pretended not to understand her, or even acted as if they did not hear her” (291). Tan’s mother even had to ask her daughter to speak to people for her to get necessary services (291). Individuals with poor command of English face all kinds of discrimination; the inability to express oneself in perfect English leads to social exclusion and rejection.
The command of language can’t be a criterion for determining a person’s intellectual abilities, inclinations, and career options; moreover, it can’t be the ground for social separation and segregation. In her essay, Tan shows that the assumptions about people with a poor command of English are baseless. Notions that these people are less intelligent, do not have talents for literature and languages and in general, and are generally not worthy of high-quality service and support are wrong. They should be eradicated from the public’s mind.
While analyzing this article, I learned to apply critical thinking to written works, drawing inferences from the author’s words and making conclusions as to what idea he/she wanted to express. This skill will benefit my future works as now I can see the concepts behind the words and understand how different concepts may be portrayed with the help of literary means. I learned to carefully examine the evidence for my ideas, which will help me in the future to determine which information is valid and worth to be considered. I learned to critically seek statements that repeat themselves, even though they are written in different words. By removing them, I can improve the precision and clarity of my writing. I learned to plan ahead by thinking of my objectives and goals. Thanks to this skill, I will be better equipped in the future to write a story that is relevant and properly structured.
Work Cited
Tan, Amy. “Mother tongue.” The World is a Text: Writing, Reading, and Thinking about Culture and Its Contexts, 2003, p. 291.