Hey! I’m happy to send it (send me best address). I’ll be futzing with it until Monday but I’ll send you the final version of whatever I end up presenting.

will not ultimately be a part of God’s people. It’s not a point that I—not only a trained biblical scholar but also an ordained Christian minister—much like or would care to argue, but it’s one that I cannot deny is very prominent in my scriptures.

Those later theologians, I want to suggest, were not misreading Paul outside of his Jewish context—as some biblical theologians today might argue. Rather they were following Paul to his logical conclusion: Anyone, whether Jew or Gentile, who does not come to recognize Jesus as the Jewish messiah

Granted, other Jews at the time of Paul were also engaged in similar exegetical discourse and contesting the same terms. Paul is the only one, however, whose rhetoric enabled the eventual displacement of all Jews from the people of God according to the theology of the later church.

Yet, in this era of “Paul within Judaism,” we are at risk of losing track of what is still the essentially supersessionist character of Paul’s coordination of categories like Israel and Gentiles.

I’ll make one last observation today regarding what I see as a curious irony. At another time in the history of the SBL, my overarching point—i.e., that Paul is doing something profoundly different from his contemporaries—would seem hardly worth arguing.

My paper is called, "'A Remnant Chosen by Grace': Tracing a Supersessionist Motif through Isaiah 10, the Pesher Isaiah (4Q163), and Romans." Here's is an excerpt from my conclusion:

On this issue, I recommend the perspective of @wilgafney.bsky.social . An internet-friendly version of her take is here: www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries...

😬

Thanks, i saw this in my searching but wasn’t sure how it compared to others.

I was thinking that even if I’m not yet permitted to post an article, I can still link the DOI.

In so doing, We Are Israel offers a more nuanced framework for thinking about supersessionism as a reflection of the shared heritage of these traditions—and therefore as a new starting point for Jewish-Christian dialogue.

Writing as Christian and Jewish Bible scholars who are grounded in the historical study of the ancient world and engaged with these texts as living scriptures for our respective communities, we trace these Jewish roots in terms of five key themes of Christian supersessionism.

Rather, supersessionism organically develops discourses that are native to the Hebrew Bible and shared with Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism. As Jon D. Levenson puts it, “Nowhere does Christianity betray [i.e., reveal] its Jewish roots more than in its supersessionism.”

Without denying that supersessionism has often had devastating consequences for Jews (and others), we show that the common portrayal of supersessionism as an entirely negative Christian innovation is both historically and theologically inaccurate.

Today, in many Christian spaces, this perspective on supersessionism has become axiomatic. We Are Israel: The Jewish Roots of Christian Supersessionism problematizes this simplistic story.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that supersessionism is the fundamental crux in Jewish-Christian relations. After the Holocaust, many Christian theologians began to interrogate and reject supersessionism as an evil Christian mutation that perverts the Bible and inevitably encourages violence.