General Assembly, 1987). In this document, which was not an official position paper but commended to the church for study and reflection, these two statements were made:
1) 2. We affirm that the church, elected in Jesus Christ, has been engrafted into the people of God established by the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Therefore, Christians have not replaced Jews (A Theological Understanding, 8).
2) 3. We affirm that both the church and the Jewish people are elected by God for witness to the world and that the relationship of the church to contemporary Jews is based on that gracious and irrevocable election of both (A Theological Understanding, 10).
For an evaluation of the paper see Robert R. Hann, “Supersessionism, Engraftment, and Jewish-Christian Dialogue: Reflections on the Presbyterian Statement on Jewish-Christian Relations,” JES 27 (1990) 327–42. For more ecumenical statements see Thomas Breidenthal, “Neighbor-Christology: Reconstructing Christianity Before Supersessionism,” Cross Currents 49 (1999) 319 n. 1.
28 Donald G. Bloesch, “‘All Israel Will Be Saved’: Supersessionism and the Biblical Witness,” Int 43 (1989) 131.
29 See Donald Hagner, “A Positive Theology of Judaism from the New Testament,” SEÅ 69 (2004) 7–28.
1
The History of Scholarship on Anti-Semitism, Anti-Judaism, and Supersessionism in Hebrews
General Trends
Before World War II, only a few scholars took up the issue of anti-Semitism and the New Testament. Notable are G. F. Moore, James Parkes, and A. Lukyn Williams.1 They argued that there were many anti-Judaic statements in early Christian literature. After World War II, several more studies addressed this issue. Jules Isaac’s work, Jésus et Israel, published in 1948,2 argued that the New Testament presented a contemptuous picture of the Jews and the Jewish religion. He questioned whether the Christian religion could ever separate itself from its implicit anti-Semitic roots.
Following Isaac was Marcel Simon’s Verus Israel originally published in 1948, with a second edition in 1964.3 Simon made a crucial distinction between “anti-Jewish polemic” and “Christian anti-Semitism.” The first describes the effort by Christians to distinguish themselves ideologically from Jews. The second represents hostility towards Jews in general, but mainly as a result of their refusal to accept Christian claims. This began the attempt to distinguish between justifiable rational polemic and violent acts or belligerent words.
Two scholars who have attempted to respond to Isaac are F. Lovsky4 and Gregory Baum. Lovsky tries to protect the New Testament from Isaac’s anti-Semitic claim by arguing that anti-Semitism before Christianity actually had a much larger influence on early Christianity than Isaac admits. Secondly, Isaac does not distinguish between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. Lovsky argues that there is no anti-Semitism in the New Testament—except possibly in John. However, there is indeed anti-Judaism. Gregory Baum began trying to defend the New Testament from charges of being anti-Semitic by attributing anti-Semitism of Christians to later historical developments. Yet as he continued to dialogue with others,5 he changed his mind. He now believes that the New Testament is anti-Jewish and that a few marginal corrections will not clear its name.6
Much of the discussion following the holocaust revolved around making theological room for the Jewish religion. Catholic and Protestant scholars have attempted to show that the Jewish and Christian faiths are actually one, though mediated through different covenants or types of covenants.7 These studies have primarily focused on ecclesiology, redefining the believing community.
J. Coert Rylaarsdam begins by identifying two covenants in the Old Testament, one made with Israel and the other made with David. He argues that the covenant with Israel was the older berith, which was a covenant of religious confederacy.8 This covenant is more of a historically oriented covenant, while the Davidic is more eschatologically oriented.9 Rylaarsdam sees Christianity’s uniqueness as a Jewish sect as simply a reprioritizing of the Davidic covenant over against the one made with Israel. He argues that both of these covenants are found in the New Testament, creating an opportunity for dialogue between Judaism and Christianity.10
Rosemary Radford Ruether, in her book Faith and Fratricide, published in 1974, contributed to the discussion by asking whether the Christian gospel itself contains elements of anti-Jewish trends. She identifies the claim, “Jesus is Messiah,” as the source and origin of anti-Semitism in Christian thought. For by claiming Jesus as the Christ, one necessarily refutes the synagogue reading of Scripture. Therefore all the early Christian writings were bent on proving that the church alone had the hermeneutical key to understand Scripture. This implied that the Jews were reading Scripture incorrectly. It is this crucial distinction that Radford describes as the “left hand of Christology.” She argues that it is difficult to say, “Jesus is the Messiah,” without saying at the same time, “the Jews be damned.”11 Thus the gospel itself has created the divide between the synagogue and the church.
More recently, some scholars have tried to combine several different reasons for anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism within the Christian faith.12 For example, Gavin I. Langmuir points to the fact that the Christian sect of Judaism was inherently anti-Judaic in order to distinguish itself and propagate itself. “For motives common to most sects, the adherents of the new Christian religions were necessarily anti-Judaic in the sense that they had to demonstrate the superiority of their Christian religions to any Judaic religions.”13 Langmuir sees the emergence of anti-Semitism coming from the disbelief of the Jews in Jesus, the accusation of deicide, and the idea that God was punishing the Jews for their disbelief.14
Focus on Hebrews
Negative Views of the Epistle
Although Hebrews has not been the focus of the debate in regard to the question of anti-Semitism in the New Testament,15 there have been some pretty serious charges laid against it. With the majority of scholars, Lillian Freudmann argues that Hebrews was written to persuade Christians who were tempted to revert back to Judaism.16 However, she asserts that the author of Hebrews twisted Old Testament passages to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity over Judaism.17 Freudmann concludes that this type of exegesis “transmitted an anti-Torah, anti-Jewish, and antisemitic ideology.”18 She accuses the author of intentionally manipulating Old Testament passages to present a negative view of Judaism and those who hold on to Jewish practices.
John
