Supersessionism and the Essence of Christianity

When I was a graduate student of theology at a mainstream Catholic university in the United States, I once ran afoul of a professor’s sensibilities on a discussion board by referring to the Old Israel as a “carnal prefigurement” of the New Israel, namely, the Catholic Church, during a conversation on Biblical typology. After lecturing me about how “carnal” is not an innocent term because it has been used in the past to draw an analogy between Jews and Christians as “flesh and spirit” and telling me that I should reflect on “Christian anti-Judaism” in the past and “explore typology in a way less prone to anti-Judaism,” he proceeded to lock the discussion board to prevent further replies. Since this experience of mine, public discourse on Judaism and anti-Judaism has only become more polarized, and it is imperative for Catholics to have a proper understanding of what supersessionism—the proposition that the Old Covenant has been “superseded” by the New through the coming of Jesus Christ—is and why it is relevant not only to Biblical interpretation but the very concept of Christianity itself.

First, the term “Judaism” must be defined here: most modern people would think of it as the various religious beliefs, traditions, and practices that claim to trace their origins back to Abraham and Moses, based on a certain set of Scriptures, which more or less overlap with what Christians call the Old Testament. Of course, to stave off potential angry comments from academic sociologists and historians, I have to include the disclaimer (so common in modern academia!) that sociological categories will never be fully precise or take into account all the complexities of the things we attempt to categorize. However, the key point I wish to highlight here is that what people generally refer to as “Judaism” today is not the Judaism that was practiced during Old Testament times, but the religious beliefs and customs which explicitly trace their origin story to the same point that Christians would with the key exception of refusing to accept Jesus Christ as the true Messiah.

Working from this definition, assent to Christianity necessarily entails the rejection of this form of Judaism, because one cannot pretend to be a Christian while denying the very claims of Christ Himself with regard to His own identity. “But,” a reader is bound to exclaim, “Christ Himself was Jewish, as was the Virgin Mary, the Apostles, and the first converts!” This brings us to the second definition of Judaism, which is that religion which existed prior to the coming of Christ which was intended by God to prefigure the Church of the New Covenant. Thus, a belief that the Catholic Church is the “New Israel” creates an understanding that is inherently pro-Judaism, provided that Judaism is defined in its proper context: Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism itself, and because the Old must be interpreted in light of the New, only in Christianity can one fully grasp the significance of Biblical typology and everything that was foreshadowed in the ancient prophecies. Because the Church is pro-Judaism in this sense, she necessarily has to be against the Judaism defined in the other sense as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

As should be evident here, I have been speaking of principles and institutions, not of persons who adhere to those principles as individuals or as groups. As a matter of principle, because the Church is the New Israel, any claim made by the Old Israel regarding the continued validity of the Mosaic Law, which was temporary and meant to serve the function of setting aside the chosen people from whom the Messiah was to come, must necessarily be in opposition to the Church. This is why theologians have spoken of the “carnal exegesis” taking place in the synagogue in contrast to the “spiritual exegesis” taking place in the churches: a continued adherence to the Old Israel under the Mosaic Law without reference to Christ is to miss the spiritual significance of ancient prophecies and reduce salvation down to the level of the worldly. This is indeed exactly what many did in the time of Christ: they refused to believe that He was the Messiah because He did not fit their worldly standards of what a Savior should look like, and so they failed—for the scholars of the law, most likely willfully—to see how the ancient prophecies truly did apply to Him and His Mother.

To give an example, on feasts of Our Lady, the Church in her Divine Office applies passages from Canticles to Our Lady,¹ an interpretation that modern adherents of post-temple Judaism would reject. A Christian would criticize the Jewish rejection of this interpretation as a “carnal” manner of approaching the Scriptures because it is predicated upon a rejection of Christ’s status as the Messiah, and consequently a rejection of the status of His Mother. Why were the claims of Jesus and Mary rejected? Because many people believed that they did not fit the proper description of what a Messiah and His Mother should be like according to worldly standards of wealth, power, and glory. Those who subject God’s ways, which are infinitely above men’s ways, to the fleshly standards of the world can only be rightly called “carnal,” according to the common and negative understanding of the word “carnal.” While not every Jewish person shares the same level of personal culpability for his lack of faith in Christ, modern Judaism as a whole is inherently “carnal” on account of its initial rejection of Christ, a rejection upheld until this day.

In criticizing something as “carnal,” theologians generally mean that the natural is being placed above the supernatural. For example, if someone cheats and steals to gain money, then that person can be described as a carnal person because he prioritizes his worldly desire for money above the moral law, showing a repudiation of the spiritual obligation to love God and one’s neighbor. While most of us do not fall into that extreme example, we all become carnal people in this sense every single time we sin, which is a turning from God, the uncreated good, toward the creature, which is a created good. However, “carnal” also has an at least neutral and even positive definition, which simply refers to the fact that visible matter exists, that we have bodies, and that there is such thing as the natural and temporal order. This is a definition that many Christians, even theologians, often fail to consider; in a world permeated by materialism, they often overreact and inadvertently adopt soul-body dualism instead.

A proper understanding of the theological term “carnal prefigurement” in discussions about the relationship between the Old Israel and the Catholic Church relies on making the distinction between these two definitions. The Old Israel was “carnal” not in the sense that its members were greedy and gluttonous people who behaved like wild animals, prioritizing fleshly pleasure above spiritual goods, although there is no shortage of accounts of the Israelites behaving in such ways and being chastised by God in the Old Testament. Likewise, the Church is not “holy” (as we say in the Nicene Creed) or “spiritual” because her members are necessarily holy and spiritual. There were saints in the limbo of the fathers that Christ freed when he descended there after His Crucifixion, and there are saints born long after the Incarnation and establishment of the New Israel whom the Church commemorates as such. In both pre- and post-Incarnation times, members of Israel, both Old and New, have consisted of a wide variety of people possessing different levels of virtue and may be described as “carnal” or “spiritual” to differing degrees.

No, the Old Israel was a “carnal prefigurement” because it was an institution that God established in the world, for a purpose to be accomplished in the temporal order, which would then give way to a supernatural Israel that would last forever. This sense of “carnal” nature is not a bad thing any more than the human body is a bad thing—and how could the human body be a bad thing when our salvation was brought about by the Incarnation of God who took on human flesh so that He could suffer and die? But once the Old Israel tries to assert herself over and above her original purpose by rejecting the Messiah, then she becomes “carnal” in the negative sense as well, as explained above, by pitting her temporal institution against the spiritual purpose to which she was directed. That sense of being “carnal” is bad and analogous to placing the demands of the flesh over the demands of the spirit. The Old Judaism of the past was carnal in the same sense that the human body is carnal, whereas the New Judaism predicated upon rejecting Christ is indeed carnal in the negative sense.

Once again, we see that it is not a question of whether to be pro- or anti-Judaic, or whether Israel itself is good or bad, but of what exactly one means when one speaks of Judaism, Israel, or the nature of being carnal. Only those who lack the ability to make theological distinctions, are intellectually dishonest, or are simply afraid of being called “anti-Semitic” could fail to see that Christianity is the fulfillment of the Old Judaism, and as a consequence, is inherently opposed to the New Judaism. Further, it would have gone without saying in the past—when intellectual discourse was not so prone to devolve into personal grievances—that none of this has to do with how one regards Jewish people as individuals. Christians must oppose erroneous religious beliefs while still showing charity toward those who adhere to those beliefs. Objectively, continuing to adhere to the Old Law after its fulfillment is a carnal act, regardless of the subjective intentions of individual Jews.

The fear of being called “anti-Semitic” should absolutely not prevent Catholics from loudly proclaiming the truth, which is that Jesus Christ is the Redeemer who shed His blood for the salvation of the world and rose from the dead three days later. To ignore the absolute centrality of Jesus Christ as God made man is to undermine the entire premise of Christianity, and it is not offensive to point out that this is the precise reason why Christianity and Judaism are two different religions. By praying for the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity, we are praying for nothing other than their acceptance of the very thing that gave their Jewish identity its meaning in the first place, namely, being the nation from which the Messiah was to come. And the Messiah did indeed come two thousand years ago, using one nation to extend salvation to all nations through His Church, the New Israel. Therefore, let us proclaim the Gospel not just with our words but also with our deeds, lest we ourselves become carnal hypocrites who prioritize worldly pleasures above the love of God.

1. See the antiphons at Lauds and Vespers in the Common of the Blessed Virgin Mary from the traditional Roman Office.