Antisemitism on the political right has seen a noticeable increase in visibility across the past year. Prominent figures such as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens have been criticized for alleged antisemitic messaging, while articles from publications such as the Wall Street Journal and prominent institutions including the Cato Institute chronicle its rise.
Interesting Times with Ross Douthat’s podcast episode “It’s Deeper Than Nick Fuentes” considers the relationship between nationalism and antisemitism with guest Yoram Hazony. Hazony, a conservative Israeli-American philosopher and political theorist, strongly advocates for nationalism, having authored multiple books on the topic.
Douthat and Hazony discussed whether nationalism is inherently antisemitic and the current state of antisemitism on the right. In regards to nationalism, Hazony strongly advocated for it and argued that nationalism is actually pro-Jewish, being initially “from the Jews.” While Hazony expressed concern about what he called the “aggressive anti-Jewish messages” seen in many on the right, he maintained that U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is “probably the most pro-Jewish coalition that there’s ever been.” Trump needs, however, to reign in pernicious antisemitism on the right before it damages the coalition.
According to Hazony, online messaging from many key voices on the right is “veering towards a wide variety of aggressive anti-Jewish messages.” Hazony singled out young people as being especially targeted by and vulnerable to this rhetoric. There are multiple reasons for vulnerability to such messages. Many young Christian Republicans reject dispensationalism, Zionism, and eschatologies where Jews are important. Rather than viewing Jews as theologically and politically relevant today, they view Christians as the Jews’ successors (supersessionism), rendering Jews obsolete.
Douthat suggested a further complication stems from young conservatives’ search for tradition in Christianity. The Catholic and Orthodox churches both have a complicated past with Jews which conservatives discovering Catholicism and Orthodoxy are inevitably exposed to.
In addition to discussing the current state of the political right, Hazony defended nationalism as a good and even natural political doctrine. In response to those who claim nationalism naturally tends towards antisemitism, Hazony asserted that many political and philosophical doctrines can and have used antisemitism as a political expedient. For instance, many rationalist philosophers were wildly antisemitic, hating the Jewish idea of particularism and despising the Hebrew Bible.
Rather than being antisemitic, nationalism is both natural and also championed by the Jews themselves, Hazony argued. Families and tribes are the natural, fundamental mode of existence that were only later superseded by empires. Nationalism itself is “from the Jews”; God’s covenant with Abraham to make him into a nation is the basis of the Jewish state. Hazony believes that not only Jews, but other peoples, can and should do the same thing.
However, Hazony’s vision is not centered solely around ethnicity. He pointed out the many passages in the Hebrew Bible that command Israelites to treat foreigners with kindness. Rather than simply ethnic, Hazony emphasized the importance of a common identity. This identity is based on three things: national independence, national interests, and national traditions. In short, national independence means national sovereignty unimpeded by international organizations; national interests focus on the state’s interests rather than global interests; and national traditions include but are not limited to the constitutional, religious, and linguistic.
This national identity is in jeopardy in the U.S., Hazony believes. The U.S. tendency to get involved in foreign countries leads to neglecting its own interests, while its culture has become increasingly disunified. In order to preserve its national identity, the U.S. needs to find a cultural center, and Hazony believes it has to be “Christianity, common law inheritance, [and the] English language.”
When Douthat asked if this reaffirmation of national identity might jeopardize U.S.-Israel relations, Hazony disagreed. While the relationship would inevitably shift, “No one should be thinking that Israel has to be a U.S. protectorate forever,” he said.
Finally, Douthat and Hazony discussed action steps for Trump and Vice President Vance in regards to combating antisemitism. While Hazony praised Trump for “honoring different groups” within his coalition and being good at “giving honor to everybody,” he believed that Trump and Vance had not been speaking up against antisemitism as much as they needed to. Both need to decide “who’s in and who’s out” of the coalition, and tell troublemakers within the right to stop when necessary.
Despite antisemitism on the right, Hazony still believes that the current administration is overall pro-Jewish, while calling for leaders in the administration to criticize antisemitic behavior. Hazony denies the idea that nationalism is fundamentally antisemitic. The U.S. can be both nationalist and pro-Jewish, and according to Hazony, it should be.
More from IRD:
Mainline Protestantism vs Christian Nationalism
Conserving and ‘Un-conserving’
Comment by Wilson R. on January 20, 2026 at 9:58 am
The even larger question, unsurprisingly ignored by Ross Douthat, is whether nationalism can co-exist with Catholicism and with the gospel of Jesus. One or the other position invariably loses.
Comment by Mark on January 20, 2026 at 11:25 am
I think part of the reason we’re seeing a resurgence of antisemitism on the right now is that evangelicals never truly confronted supersessionism in any meaningful way, unlike the Catholics and mainline Protestants. Dispensationalism gave them an excuse to avoid these harder conversations while still appearing to renounce antisemitism, but it was a renunciation based solely on an eschatological theory rather than true repentence and reconciliation.
Comment by Wilson R. on January 20, 2026 at 11:55 am
Yes, Mark, to your point, I vividly remember when the president of the Southern Baptist Convention said, “God does not hear the prayer of the Jew.” That was perhaps the most blasphemous thing I ever heard from a Christian religious leader.
Among many Southern Baptists today, that attitude is still there, submerged. They don’t crudely state it, like their former leader did, but they still quietly believe that all Jews will go to hell unless they accept Jesus as their lord and savior. They are pro-Israel, and therefore give the false appearance of being pro-Jewish, because their incoherent understanding of Revelation leads them to believe that the Jerusalem Temple must be rebuilt before Jesus returns.
Whenever I hear that from one of them, I ask: “So let me get this straight. The God who spoke the world into being is powerless to send his Son back until human beings build a building? Is that what you’re really saying?”
That usually ends the discussion.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on January 20, 2026 at 1:17 pm
Supersessionism is not anti-Semitic and belief in it does not make anyone vulnerable to anti-Semitism.
One can believe in it and also believe that God cares about all people–including Jews–and wants the gospel to be told to all people–including Jews.
Long before dispensationalism, Christians who believed in supersessionism have also believed–based upon passages in both the Old Testament and the New Testament–that just before the end of the present world there will be a great conversion of Jews. For them, all peoples–including Jews–are important in eschatology.
I’ll refrain from critiquing Hazony other than to say I very much disagree with him.
This article would be much better if it defined “nationalism” and “antisemitism”.
Recently Religion News Service published an opinion piece by Avi Shafran entitled “Jew haters have always found new reasons to justify their actions”. He says in it: ” First comes the hatred, then the fantasies to justify it”. I think there’s some truth to that.
I agree with commenter Wilson R about the importance of the question of “whether nationalism can co-exist with Catholicism and with the gospel of Jesus”, although I would say not just Catholicism but Christianity. In response to his question “So let me get this straight” etc.: I’m surprised no one answers by saying something like: “God is not powerless: however, He has promised to send His Son after certain conditions are fulfilled–which includes the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem–and He will fulfill His promise accordingly”. (Note: I myself am not convinced that the temple must be rebuilt before Jesus returns.)
Comment by Mark on January 20, 2026 at 2:32 pm
Salvatore Anthony Luiso,
A couple of points. While you may be right that supersessionism doesn’t always lead to anti-Semitism, it certainly tend to encourage among certain groups of Christians. We should be upfront about the fact that through of Christian history, anti-Semitism has run rampant, so appealing to tradition in this context may actually be the best course of action. We have a lot more than the Holocaust to repent of.
Eschatology is complicated subject. There are a lot of verses in Revelation and other books of the Bible we interpret as future prophesies, that on closer study were probably more indicative of what was happening at the time the author was writing. In the end, I think we should take Jesus at his word when he said, “I will come as a thief in the night. No one knows the hour.”
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on January 20, 2026 at 3:02 pm
Mark,
Firstly, I agree with those who distinguish between antisemitism and what some call anti-Judaism. There’s a significant difference between the two. One can see this from the fact of how they regard Jews. One who is antisemitism believes, more or less, that Jews are irredeemably evil: hence they will either regard Jesus and the apostles as evil or deny that they were Jewish. One who is anti-Judaist does not believe that: he may dislike–even hate–the Jews around him who practice Judaism, but regard a Jew who believes that Jesus is the Messiah as spiritual kin–and *not* second-class kin.
Throughout Christian history, anti-Judaism has been far more common than antisemitism.
Secondly: Correlation is not causation. I see no reason to think that supersessionism–rightly understood–encourages antisemitism.
Thirdly: One can believe that the Bible says that Jesus will return under certain conditions without believing one can know the day or the hour when He returns. In Matthew 24, Jesus speaks of His return, and says that no one but His Father knows when it will be. But he also says in verse 14: “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (AV/KJV).
Other passages of the Scriptures mention other conditions related to His return.
Comment by Wilson R. on January 20, 2026 at 4:06 pm
My basic disagreement with the idea of supersessionism involves the question: What, exactly, do Christians presume they’re superseding?
Many Christians I’ve encountered–people whom I would not regard as antisemitic–nevertheless believe that Christianity was ordained as a replacement for Judaism. They are shocked when someone reminds them that Jesus, a Jew, never stopped being a Jew. He never told any of the Jews who followed him or who he encountered to stop being Jews. He specifically said that he came to fulfill the Jewish Law, not abolish it. He told the Samaritan woman at the well, “Salvation comes from the Jews.” He taught from Jewish scriptures. The Sermon on the Mount is a Jewish teacher teaching an audience of Jews about the deeper meaning of the Jewish Law so they can be better Jews.
After Jesus’ resurrection, his Jewish followers (most, anyhow) came to accept Gentiles into their movement even if they didn’t follow Jewish dietary laws and the men did not undergo circumcision. But up until the Jewish rebellion of 66 CE and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, “Christians” were widely regarded as just one of the various groups within Judaism, like Baptists and Methodists are regarded as groups within Christianity.
The problem with supersessionism is that it strips the essential Jewishness of Jesus’ teachings from what Christians learn about their faith. Many labor under the sincere and false impression that “love your neighbor” is an idea that sprang into being with Christianity, replacing a Judaism that was entirely about antiquated legalisms. And when Christians remain ignorant about the Jewishness of their beliefs and their messiah, it’s a short step to antisemitism and even persecution. It’s not an inevitable step, but it’s a short and easy one, for which the remedy is accurate teaching.
Comment by Mark on January 20, 2026 at 5:58 pm
Salvatore Anthony Luiso,
Whether you want call it antisemitism or anti-Judaism, the Church (no denomination in particular here) has a long history of violence, abuse, discrimination, and false witness against the Jews that goes back centuries which they justified through the twisting of scripture. The word blood libel comes from the false claim that Jews kidnapped young children and drank their blood. The original ghettos were developed in Medieval Italy to segregate the Jewish inhabitants of major cities from the Christian population. And until the 20th Century there were laws in some countries that made it illegal for Jews to raise a child who had been baptized, even if it was their own son or daughter. Google Edgardo Mortara.
The hatred of Jews (whether religious or ethnic-motivated) began very early in Christian history and sadly has probably been the norm rather than the exception for most of that history. Early church fathers who many still revere today were extreme in their hatred of the Jews. St. Ambrose and John Chrysostom both applauded the burning of synagogues by Christian mobs and condemned the decisions by the imperial court to make Christians pay for their reconstruction. Martin Luther wrote tracts encouraging all manner of violence against the Jews in Germany, which many believe many have influenced the Nazis centuries later.
Christians have a lot to repent for when it comes to their Jewish neighbors. The Catholics took positive steps forward during Vatican II and most mainline churches have adopted some official statement condemning antisemitism and even supersessionism itself. Evangelicals have been relatively quiet on the issue, aside from their stance on Israel, which is driven more by eschatology than true regard for the welfare of the Jews. Some seem to think because it wasn’t their specific church/denomination that started the blood libels or carried out pogroms that the sins of Christians past aren’t their concern. I disagree. I think this is something all Christian have to reckon with and learn from collectively. Until we do so the same hatred will keep coming back in new forms. That’s why we’re seeing disturbed fanatics like Stephen Spencer Pittman burning synagogues again. He’s just the latest in a long history of violence toward Jews. We have to teach that history in our schools and our churches, so we don’t repeat it.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on January 20, 2026 at 6:52 pm
Wilson R,
In answer to your question “What, exactly, do Christians presume they’re superseding”:
The Wikipedia article “Supersessionism” says that supersessionism “is the Christian doctrine that the Christian Church has superseded the Jewish people, assuming their role as God’s covenanted people,[2] thus asserting that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ has superseded or replaced the Mosaic covenant”.
What does this mean in practical terms?
It means that at the time Jesus was born, if one sought to join fully the covenant people of God, one would join them by way of what Christians refer to as the “Old Covenant”. This included adherence to the Mosaic Law, and looking forward to the coming of the Messiah.
And it means that ever since the death and resurrection Jesus, if one sought to join fully the covenant people of God, one would join them by way of what Christians refer to as the “New Covenant”. This does not include strict adherence to the Mosaic Law, but it does include faith in Jesus as the Messiah, adherence to His teachings, and looking forward to His return.
If this sounds radical to you: it should. In fact, it may be even more radical than you know. One can learn about how radical it is by reading Philippians 3.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on January 20, 2026 at 7:30 pm
Mark,
I don’t disagree in the slightest that there is a long and extremely sad history of hatred of Jews by Christians.
I don’t want to argue about the responsibility of certain Church Fathers because I don’t know enough about it, but I will say that, from the little I’ve learned about relations between Jews and Christians in antiquity, there was enmity and rivalry on both sides, as there so commonly has been and still is between distinct religious groups: for example, in the Middle East, between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims.
After the start of the Reformation, Luther was publicly critical of how Christians had treated Jews, and was conciliatory toward them. If you want to learn more about this, I suggest you learn about his treatise of 1523 entitled *That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew*. His attitude toward Jews changed over time, and eventually became extremely negative.
I’ll refrain from explaining why, but I will mention one important difference between him and the Nazis. At the end of his life, Luther considered the voluntary separation of Jews from German society to be a threat to German society. Hence he advocated for *forced assimilation* of Jews into German society. To a Nazi, that would be a horrible idea, because to them, the “most dangerous Jew” was the one who was so assimilated to German society that one couldn’t tell he was a Jew. At first, their solution to that “problem” was the *forced separation* of Jews from German society. This included identifying all Germans with Jewish ancestry–even Germans whose families had been practicing Christians for centuries, and who may not have known that they had Jewish ancestry.
Lastly, regarding Stephen Spencer Pittman: He’s 19 years old. His father reported him to law enforcement. I don’t think he’s symptomatic of Christian antisemitism or anti-Judaism so much as an example young American men who’ve become radicalized in one form of hatred or another. Douglas McArthur McCain and Dylan Roof are other examples.
Comment by Mark on January 20, 2026 at 8:41 pm
Salvatore Anthony Luiso,
Stephen Spencer Pittman professes to be a Christian and claimed his attack was religiously-motivated. I’m not saying he learned his anti-Semitism attending Sunday school every week as a child. More likely he was radicalized by anti-Semitic voices online such as Joel Webbon and Corey Mahler who are blending theocracy and white supremacy together. I should mention that Pittman’s reference to synagogues as “churches of Satan” is a common phrase used by those who you would probably classify as being more “anti-Jewish” than anti-Semitic and one that dates back to very early on in church history. The point is that there are alt-right voices all over the internet quoting the later writings of Luther along with other anti-Jewish voices in church history to try to justify hatred of and even violence against the Jews today. If we don’t address and recant this part of our past openly, then other young men like Pittman will surely find themselves ensnared in it without the means to escape it.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on January 20, 2026 at 10:03 pm
Mark,
It sounds like you don’t know how Pittman went astray. Neither do I. Therefore I think it’s not worthwhile to speculate about its origin and how it could have been prevented.
For all either of us know, he was raised in a church which teaches against antisemitism. For all either of us know, he developed a perverse interest in it precisely because he was taught it was forbidden. For all either of us know, he adopted antisemitism as a way to assert his independence from his family or to rebel against how he was raised.
Christian churches in America have been teaching against the hatred of Jews for many years. It seems to me that by the 1980s–possibly by the 1970s–the only ones which were teaching it were ones which were heretical with respect to basic doctrine, e.g. churches that taught that Jesus wasn’t Jewish.
For many years it’s been common knowledge in America that blatant antisemitism is socially unacceptable. In recent years it’s gained some acceptance. I don’t know all the reasons why this is, but I don’t think its because churches here haven’t “recanted” of the anti-Judaism in church history. For all I know, all the major denominations have already publicly renounced antisemitism and apologize accordingly.
Over 25 years ago, Pope John Paul II officially apologized for the Crusades–yet there are still Catholics who like and defend them as just.
In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention officially apologized for its racism of the past–that doesn’t mean that no Southern Baptist has been racist ever since.
I won’t say that churches should not speak out more against antisemitism, but I doubt that it will make much difference if they do. To return to my original comment here: I believe there’s some truth to the remark: ”First comes the hatred, then the fantasies to justify it”.
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on January 20, 2026 at 10:53 pm
As Christians we should be opposed to hate in all its forms and from whomever it comes….including those, whether Christian or Jewish, who hate Gazans, Iranians Libyans, Yemenis Afghans,, et. al., and see them as nothing more than insects to be trampled upon.
Sometimes the karma you send out comes back to bite you.
Comment by David on January 21, 2026 at 7:37 am
The Boston Public Library is well known for the many murals which adorn its interiors. In 1919, John SInger Sargent produced two paints, “Church” and “Synagogue.” The first shows Church nobily enthroned with a dead Jesus hanging from her knees while the symbols of the Evangelist hover above. Synagogue has a contorted pose with her crown falling, scepter broken, eyes blindfolded, and all about her collapsing. This was a somewhat disgraceful depiction for a public institution.
I doubt one could find one more “nationalist” than George Washington. His often quoted letter to the Jewish congregation at New Port, RI, shows the tolerance intended for the new country.
The problem of late is the realization that the modern State of Israel has engaged in ethnic cleansing. Many thought it nice that Jewish refuges, who had suffered so much in Europe, would have a place to go. Forgotten was the fact that Palestine already had a population, which we now know through genetics had been there as along as any Jewish population. The pre-1948 writings of David Ben Gurion reveal his thoughts that the whole of Palestine needed to be taken away from the indigenous population. Sadly this, and not co-existence has been the course of Israel.
Concerns over treatment of the Palestinians came to a head after the attack by Hamas and the Israeli retaliation. American Jews have blindly supported Israel regardless of its actions and have made themselves objects of reproach. They need to return to the principles of Judaism which is traditionally supportive of tolerance.
Comment by Wilson R. on January 21, 2026 at 1:29 pm
Salvatore:
Respectfully, I think you are misreading supersessionism into Philippians. Paul rails here and elsewhere against the Judaizers, who insisted that all Gentile converts conform to Jewish dietary and circumcision practices. But that’s not the same as saying that Judaism is entirely replaced. I’m guided much more by what Paul says in Romans, rebuking Gentile Christians for feeling superior to Jewish Christians and telling them that they are merely grafted by God’s grace onto the deeply rooted tree of Judaism. That, I think, is the proper way for Christians to approach their Jewish brothers and sisters.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on January 21, 2026 at 3:35 pm
Wilson R,
I’m surprised you see Philippians 3 that way.
As you know, Paul was a Jew. In verses 5 and 6, he mentions several things he could boast about which are related to the Old Covenant:
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
(AV/KJV)
Notice what he says about them now that he has entered the New Covenant:
But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
(AV/KJV)
Do you see the radical change? The things which Paul formerly might regard as grounds for boasting under the Old Covenant he now regards as “loss” and “dung” under the New Covenant.
Regarding the olive tree of Romans 11: Notice that certain branches have been broken off that tree due to unbelief (verses 20). Yes, Gentiles who have grafted into the tree should not boast, because their grafting was not based on their merit, but on the goodness of God (verse 22). And God can graft those broken branches into the tree (verses 22 and 23). But as long as those branches remain in unbelief, they remain separate from the tree–which is to say, they are NOT in the tree.
This does NOT mean that the Gentile branches in the tree should hate the broken branches: rather, they should desire that they be grafted into the tree–as Paul himself wanted (9:1-5 and 10:1-3).
Comment by Wilson R. on January 21, 2026 at 4:21 pm
Salvatore:
As I read Paul (not just Philippians), he regards outward signs of compliance with the Law (e.g., circumcision, dietary rules, his status as a Pharisee) as meaningless compared to the inward transformation he experienced from knowing Christ. And certainly I agree with that.
But to argue that Christianity superseded Judaism in its entirety is to reduce Judaism to nothing but a set of rules to obey and boxes to check. And that is not what Judaism was/is. I am reminded that Jesus himself told his listeners that the teaching of the Pharisees was sound; his critique was that they didn’t practice what they preach. While Christians often try to reduce Judaism to a theology of works-based salvation, even citing Paul to make that argument, I am reminded that Jesus himself talked often about the importance of bearing good fruit as an outward sign of inner transformation, and Paul continues that theme in writing about the fruits of the Spirit.
Yes, Paul says that some branches have been trimmed from the tree. But it seems plain enough that he is saying that the roots of the tree are Jewish; if those roots are dead or poisonous, then so are the Gentile Christians who, as grafts, are nurtured by those same roots. When you think about it, everything that Christians believe about the way people should treat each other is a Jewish teaching. It is in that sense I argue that Judaism has not been superseded, nor did Paul intend for it to be. I’m not arguing that Christians should be Jews. But we should honor our common roots and remember that Jesus’ teachings all came from Judaism.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on January 21, 2026 at 10:44 pm
Wilson R:
It sounds as if you think supersessionists are Christians who believe the books of the Old Covenant are obsolete and have no value and no purpose for a Christian. It is my understand that that is an ancient heresy which no orthodox Christian believes. We can see it’s not true not only because Jesus quoted those books as if they were authoritative, but so did His apostles–including Paul. However, under the New Covenant, the interpretation and application of them is not exactly the same as under the Old. You may know the saying attributed to St. Augustine: “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed”.
Jesus said more about the teaching about the Pharisees other than that it was sound. He said they make “the commandment of God of none effect” by their tradition (Matthew 15:6 (AV/KJV). Quoting Isaiah, He said that consequently “in vain they do worship me [God], teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (verse 9).
He also said: “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” (Matthew 16:6). At first His disciples thought He was talking about bread, but “Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” (verse 12).
He also said: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves” (Matthew 23:15).
Think about that. He said the Pharisees were children of hell, and that their proselytization was making their proselytes to become twice as much children of hell.
I could go on citing instances in which Jesus criticized what the Pharisees and Sadducees believed and taught. I think that all His criticisms may have this in common: not that they believed the writings of the Old Testament, but that they did NOT believe them. In John 5:45-46, the Lord says there that the reason why the Jews to whom He was speaking did not believe Him is because they did not believe Moses, and that if they did believe Moses, they would believe Him.
This is why some Christians distinguish between the religion of the ancient Israelites who are considered to be spiritual kin of Christians–such as those exemplars of faith mentioned in Hebrews 11–and the religion called Judaism in which Jesus is not recognized and esteemed to be the Messiah.
So in response to your admonition “remember that Jesus’ teachings all came from Judaism”, I ask: What about the teaching that He is the Messiah? What about the teaching that salvation is through faith in Him alone?
I agree that one can find these teachings in the Old Testament, but one can NOT find them in Judaism as it has been known since antiquity.
If I were to address everything else you say in your last comment, this comment would be too long. I hope you don’t mind that I’m stopping here.
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on January 22, 2026 at 12:58 am
It is comforting to Christians who hold to a certain set of beliefs to believe that the reason Jesus criticized the Jewish religious leaders of His day was because they were fakes and hypocrites.
But that is pure assumption.
It may in fact be that the reason Jesus criticized them was because their religion was totally wrong.
But of course Christians who insist on synchronizing Christianity and Judaism (because they have been told they must and that Scripture plainly tells them to) will never consider that.
Comment by Wilson R. on January 22, 2026 at 11:40 am
Salvatore:
In fact, I have talked with many Christians whose view of the Old Testament is just as you say in your first sentence. You may recognize it as heresy, but they believe it (to varying degrees) because they’ve never been taught any better. They’ve been taught that Judaism was a gaggle of legalisms, and I have found that many are actually a bit surprised when you remind them that the two greatest commandments taught by Jesus are from Torah—and that both of them have a very different feel from many of the legalisms associated with Orthodox Judaism (e.g., you have to walk to synagogue because you can’t start a fire on the sabbath, and the internal combustion engine in your car technically involves a fire).
I don’t dispute anything you say about Jesus’ many arguments with the Pharisees. At the same time, when you read the Gospels, you may conclude that the Pharisees are not a monolith, just as Jewish rabbis today (and Christian pastors) are not monolithic in their views. Jesus engages in theological debates with the Pharisees, just as rabbis have always done among themselves and just as you and I are doing. He hangs out with them. He accepts dinner invitations into their homes. And in John 11 we find, unsurprisingly, that many of the religious leaders in Jerusalem are conflicted about Jesus’ identity; they recognize that he must be from God in order to be able to perform the “many signs” they have seen.
Jesus says he has come to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it. That alone should rebut supersessionism. So then the question becomes: What is the meaning of the Law and how should we interpret it? And Jesus’ arguments with the Pharisees fall exactly along those lines.
The arguments over the sabbath are a good illustration. Jesus and the Pharisees agree that sabbath observance is important. So how do you honor the sabbath? The Pharisees with whom Jesus argues hang their hats on the Torah passage that says God wants Israel to be a holy nation of priests. The priests wash their hands before they eat. Therefore, the Pharisees (or at least this particular group of them) believe everyone should wash their hands, and they are genuinely puzzled when they see that Jesus’ disciples don’t do this. And then Jesus talks about the deeper purpose of the sabbath, and that’s the kind of thing he does over and over again. The Pharisees are well-intentioned when they protest Jesus’ healing works on the sabbath, and then Jesus goes around the letter of the Law to the deeper meaning and purpose of the Law.
The scholar Amy-Jill Levine–an Orthodox Jew who happens to be one of the foremost experts on first-century Christianity–argues in her book about the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus is taking his listeners into the “heart of the Torah.” If that’s correct, and I believe it is, the way of Jesus (as Christianity originally was called) is less a replacement religion to Judaism than an extension of it that honors the heart and purpose of the Law.
If you’re open to reading her book, I’d welcome reading your thoughts.
One last point: You seem to view Jesus’ proclamation of his identity as the messiah to be a teaching that doesn’t come from Judaism. I’m not quite clear why you argue that. I’m sure you would agree that the belief in the coming of the messiah is a Jewish teaching. The argument was over whether Jesus was in fact the anointed one. (Even John the Baptist’s disciples, and possibly John himself, were unsure.) And all of the original followers of Jesus were Jews who believed he was the messiah.
The Christian doctrine that Jesus was the only begotten son of God is an obvious departure from Judaism. But it’s also worth noting that this was not a teaching of Jesus. And his references to the Father do not mean he was proclaiming that he was the Father’s only son; note the language of the Lord’s Prayer, when Jesus addresses God as our common father. Even John’s quotation of Jesus saying “I and the Father are one” doesn’t necessarily mean that Jesus is saying he existed from the beginning of creation with God and WAS God. That is John’s interpretation, and we as Christians believe it–and we can still believe it while noting that Jesus never makes that explicit claim in the Gospels. In fact, if you want to proof-text, you can argue that Jesus is admitting that he and the Father are NOT one from the scripture where Jesus says that not even he knows when the end will come; only the Father knows that.
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on January 22, 2026 at 1:18 pm
WilsonR,
It’s interesting to note that from the Judaism around the time of Jesus, there are no indications in the historical record of the expectation of a unique messiah figure.
That there was is a projection of Christians backward from the NT texts onto Judaism.
There is an entire area of NT scholarship in this area, and the documentary evidence is simply not there.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on January 22, 2026 at 1:30 pm
Wilson R,
I’m not surprised that you’ve talked with many Christians whose view of the Old Testament is as I described. I think a lack of good teaching and of good learning are primarily to blame, not supersessionism.
Regarding John 11: The Pharisees in the council recognizes that Jesus performed miracles, and were concerned about it. They weren’t concerned because they thought He might be the Messiah, but “If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation” (verse 48). In John 7:48 we see that most of the Pharisees did not believe in Him:
Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?
(AV/KJV)
The only possible exception was Nicodemus.
Regarding “That alone should rebut supersessionism”: Again, it sounds like you misunderstand what supersessionism means. I refer you to my first response to you, in which I quoted the definition of it in the Wikipedia article “Supersessionism”.
Regarding the opinion of Amy-Jill Levine as you describe it: Christians believed this before she did. There are Christians who think that the Sermon on the Mount is a set of new doctrines which replaces Old Testament doctrines, but there are also Christians who think it is in fact a repetitio and elucidation of Old Testament doctrines, and a correction of mistaken interpretation and application.
Lastly, regarding the teaching that Jesus is the Messiah: I said in my previous comment: “I agree that one can find these teachings in the Old Testament, but one can NOT find them in Judaism as it has been known since antiquity”.
By “since antiquity”, I don’t mean “throughout antiquity”, but “starting from antiquity”. Yes, both before the birth of Jesus and after, Judaism has taught about a Messiah. Hence Jews who were His contemporaries on earth–such as Simeon and Anna–were able to recognize Him as the Messiah. But since that time, what one might call “mainstream Judaism” has never recognized Him to be Messiah, and taught that He is the Messiah. To the contrary: the rabbis have taught and continue to teach that He is NOT the Messiah.
That’s why some Jews who have come to believe in Jesus say such things as “the most Jewish thing a Jew can do is to believe in Jesus”, and yet FAR MORE Jews think that to believe in Jesus is not only NOT Jewish, but ANTI-Jewish.
As to whether Jesus considered Himself to be the Son of God in a way which is unique to Himself: I’m surprised you say that, because so many passages of the Scriptures contradict it either explicitly or implicitly, such as Matthew 12:6, 21:33-46, and 23:63-66, and John 5, 8:56-59, 9:35-37, 10:36, and 17. (I believe Jesus is speaking in John 3:16-18–apparently you do not.)
Comment by Mark on January 22, 2026 at 8:51 pm
Glenn Wheeler,
Jesus was a Jew. That is a historic fact beyond dispute and something both majority of Christians and Jews throughout history have agreed upon. The alternative opinion you propose sounds like Marconism, one of the oldest heresies in the book.
As to the question of whether Jews at the time of Jesus were expecting the messiah, I imagine there were varying opinions and schools of thought on this since 1st Century Judaism was anything but monothilic, despite what some may think. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were as much opponents of each other as they were of Jesus (perhaps even so in some ways). We do know, however, that there were other contemporary figures claiming to be the Messiah around the same time as Jesus. Both Roman sources and Josephus (2nd Century Jewish historian) identify some of them. We don’t know how popular most of them were, but we know they did have followers.
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on January 22, 2026 at 11:01 pm
Mark,
You are talking about messiah figures, plural; not the concept of “the” messiah. It is the idea of “the” messiah that is not attested in first century Judaism. That idea is reflected back on the Judaism of that time by Christianity.
It has nothing to do with Marcionism. Neither does it have to do with the ethnicity of Jesus. It is simply a fact that the historical record does not attest that in the Judaism of that time. The idea of “the” messiah comes from Christianity, not Judaism.
Comment by Different Steve on January 23, 2026 at 5:51 pm
Christianity does not require being naïve or self-destructive.
“Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” isn’t a throwaway line. Prudence matters. Communities are allowed to protect themselves from real harm, bad faith actors, and exploitation.
The tension is this:
Kindness is mandatory
Gullibility is not
You’re allowed to distinguish between:
Someone acting in good faith vs. someone gaming the system
Help that restores dignity vs. help that entrenches abuse
Hospitality vs. surrender of responsibility
That discernment is not un-Christian; it’s essential.
Where Christianity presses back The Gospel does push uncomfortably hard against our tendency to:
Assume bad faith too quickly
Define “advantage” in purely material terms
Let fear of being exploited justify blanket indifference
That’s why this never becomes a clean rule set. Christianity insists on case-by-case moral attention, not slogans.
A grounded way to frame it
We owe everyone dignity.
We owe help according to wisdom.
We owe special care to the genuinely vulnerable.
We owe no one a blank check.
That’s compatible with borders, citizenship, and enforcement — but it rules out cruelty, contempt, and moral shortcuts.