Supersessionism or What?
AM Psalm [120], 121, 122, 123 • PM Psalm 124, 125, 126, [127]
Jer. 25:8-17 • Rom. 10:1-13 • John 9:18-41
Our reading from the ninth chapter of John starts in the middle of an argument between Jesus and a man he has healed of congenital blindness on one side and “the Pharisees” and some Judean townspeople on the other. (To learn about the healing of the blind man and the beginning of the argument you may want to back up and read John 9:1-17.)
Jesus had healed the man on the Sabbath, and that was enough to discredit him in the eyes of most, but not all, of the Pharisees. The townspeople, who had complained about Jesus to the Pharisees, couldn’t (or didn’t want to) believe this was the same man they had seen blind and begging in the streets, even when the “blind man” and his parents insisted that they were one and the same!
Behind the argument about a healing miracle lay a far weightier one about religious authority. The Jesus movement was threatening the authority of Jewish religious leaders, calling Jesus “Messiah” and claiming that his followers were the rightful heirs of Israel’s heritage and covenant with God. In other words, Christians were the true descendants of Abraham. The theological term for this claim is supersessionism.
Jesus himself added fuel to the fire by asserting, according to the gospels, that God was his father and saying, “I am the good shepherd,” another term for “king.” In John’s gospel he utters other “I am” sayings beloved by Christians ever since, which set the authorities’ teeth on edge. They were determined to put an end to this dangerous movement by any means necessary, including killing its leader.
Around 300 years after John’s gospel was written, St. Augustine wrote, in The City of God, “For what is that which is called the Old Testament but the veiled form of the New? And what else is that which is called the New but the unveiling of the Old.” (Quoted in John M. Sweeney, “From Hateful murmurs to blood Libel,” Christian Century, March 2023, p. 84.) That sentiment, reflecting Jesus’ own words in John’s Gospel, is still present in church teachings. The Roman Catholic church, at Vatican II, significantly limited supersessionism, as have some Protestant denominations, but it is still very much with us. How could it not be when “for 2,000 years supersessionism has been the primary lens for a Christian understanding of Jews and Judaism.”? (Sweeney).
This doctrine may not have led directly to all the horrific forms of anti-Semitism that have emerged in succeeding centuries—including the Holocaust—but it has, without question, helped frame the words and actions of anti-Semites from ancient times to today. Do we, as 21st century Christians, have a responsibility in the face of these facts, and if so, what is it?
Written by Bob McMath
I am struggling to find an answer to my own question. Let me know if you come up with one.