Supersessionism and the Appropriation of the Jewish Story

In The Metaphysical Root of Antisemitism and Ziophobia, I described supersessionism as a deep, often unacknowledged metaphysical root of both antisemitism and its modern mutation, Ziophobia:

Supersessionist doctrines in Christianity and Islam—claiming to replace or inherit the identity, covenant, and land of the Jewish people—are the deep, often unacknowledged metaphysical root of both antisemitism and its modern mutation, Ziophobia. Supersessionism is simply a theological euphemism for stolen identity, stolen covenants, stolen prophets, and ultimately, a stolen God.

Supersessionist doctrines in Christianity and Islam—claiming to replace or inherit the identity, covenant, and land of the Jewish people—are the deep, often unacknowledged metaphysical root of both antisemitism and its modern mutation, Ziophobia. Supersessionism is simply a theological euphemism for stolen identity, stolen covenants, stolen prophets, and ultimately, a stolen God.

There is an obvious objection to calling it theft.

“You may frame it as that,” the argument goes, “but we frame it as subsequent revelation.”

But changing the name does not change the act.

If someone takes your identity and declares that they received a divine revelation authorizing them to take it, the new label does not magically restore what was taken.

Theft does not cease to be theft because the thief calls it revelation.

That is the problem with supersessionism.

Imagine It Happened to Someone Else

Consider a simple thought experiment.

Imagine that a new religion emerged and took virtually everything from Hinduism.

It adopted Hindu sacred figures as its own prophets. It incorporated Hindu scriptures into its own religious narrative. It declared that the Hindu gods had been misunderstood and that the new religion possessed their true meaning. It claimed that the covenant, revelations, and religious inheritance of Hindus had now been transferred to the followers of this new faith.

And when Hindus objected, the answer was:

“You may call it theft. We call it subsequent revelation.”

Would Hindus regard that as a respectful theological development?

Or would they regard it as an extraordinary act of cultural and religious appropriation?

Of course they would be insulted.

And the fact that the new religion eventually acquired billions of followers would not make the appropriation any less insulting.

A theft committed by one person does not become legitimate because a billion people approve of it.

A theft committed yesterday does not become legitimate because it has been repeated for centuries.

And a theft does not become legitimate because the thief sincerely believes God authorized it.

The sincerity of the claimant does not determine the ownership of what was claimed.

The Jewish Case Is Not Different

Now apply the same thought experiment to Judaism.

Christianity takes the Hebrew Bible as its Old Testament. It incorporates the Jewish patriarchs,........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)