Teshuva and "Thou Art The Man" - a critique of Hussein Aboubakr Mansour's thoughtful analysis of antisemitism ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Tuesday, December 09, 2025

Teshuva and "Thou Art The Man" - a critique of Hussein Aboubakr Mansour's thoughtful analysis of antisemitism

I've mentioned Hussein Aboubakr Mansour before - a brilliant thinker who shows more knowledge of theology and philosophy in a single article than I can ever hope to learn in my lifetime.

I was most interested in his latest essay where he attempts to analyze antisemitism, which is of course a topic I have thought deeply about over the years.

Mansour's Substack article "Thou Art The Man," explores the theological roots of antisemitism by analyzing Jewish and Christian scriptural approaches to Jewish self-criticism. He correctly realizes that the sheer amount of criticism of Jews in the Hebrew Scriptures is unparalleled in any other culture, and correctly notes how other Abrahamic religions use those very criticisms as the launching pads for their own criticism of Jews. Yet, Mansour shows, the Hebrew Scripture self-criticism is not coming from the outside but from within, in his language it is not horizontal from outsiders but vertical from God. He then quotes the story of the prophet Nathan rebuking King David for his sin by giving him a parable, and David's realization that he is the guilty party when Nathan tells him "Thou art the Man" whom you just said should be put to death. This caused David to accept the criticism and admit his sin.

Mansour says that the New Testament, written by Jews, continues in this prophetic tradition and criticizes Jews from within, the vertical criticism. He claims that this was the original context of the New Testament's stories criticizing the Jews and their leaders at the time. Mansour references Martin Luther to argue that Christianity ultimately declared the “Thou art the man” moment impossible for mortal man without grace - it is a standard too high for fallen humanity. At this point, the inward-turning blade of prophetic critique is turned outward. The Jew, who had once stood as the moral subject of the Bible, becomes its object, and eventually, its scapegoat.

Thus, for Mansour, the descent into antisemitism is not a Christian betrayal of Jewish tradition, but a failure to sustain its deepest moral requirement: the willingness to judge oneself by one’s own sacred texts.

Here is where I disagree, and the disagreement has far reaching implications.

I do not see the New Testament criticism of Jews and Judaism to be an internal self-criticism. There were many Jewish sects at the time and they all disagreed with each other about fundamental principles. This was not inward facing criticism but criticism of the Other, no matter that everyone was Jewish. As far as I know, nothing in the New Testament positions the sinning Jews as "us." There is always an intermediary, an outsider as a foil or critic. And this is key.

The entire point of the withering self-criticism in the Hebrew Scriptures is to elicit repentance, teshuva. David's realization that he was "the man" was a paradigm of teshuva - the shattering realization of one's own shortcomings and the promise to change oneself into a better person. This teshuva ontology is the key to understanding the entire Prophets. Even the idol worshippers of Tarshish can engage in teshuva, much to the consternation of Jonah who fears the Jews will look bad by comparison.

This is the major split between the New Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures. In Christianity, teshuva is too hard - or impossible - to achieve. One needs help from God, grace, to get closer to Him. Man is too weak. This idea is anathema to Judaism, which admits it is difficult but achievable for all; it is the work of a lifetime.

Christianity's antisemitism doesn't come from Biblical criticism of Jews. It comes from the realization that Jews continued to exist and perform what was supposed to be impossible according to Christian philosophy. And, as my thesis throughout my journey researching antisemitism says, antisemitism is the eliminationist impulse that comes when philosophies - religious or secular - cannot accommodate the existence of Jews.

Luther said Jewish style repentance is impossible. Yet Jews exist and refuse to convert to a system that is supposed to replace teshuva with grace. Therefore, their very existence is a refutation of his very philosophy - and as a result, they must be eliminated as a religious group. Luther cannot admit he is wrong - that would be, to him, the literally impossible teshuva.

Mansour identifies that the Christian tradition saw “Thou art the man” as unsustainable. But he doesn’t ask why. The answer is that Christianity rejected the concept that human beings could take full moral responsibility. They didn’t want that responsibility.

The rejection of teshuva is not just theological. It’s psychological. It’s existential. Grace was not just a gift - it was a release from obligation. Everyone understands that real teshuva, real repentance, is hard. Admitting it is possible makes it obviously preferable, which collapses the philosophy that replaces it.

This rupture is compounded by another move: Christianity’s universalization of the covenant. What was once a sacred path for a small, specific people becomes a message for the entire world. And that universalization requires the Jews to step aside.

But Judaism never claimed to be for everyone. The Torah’s demands are absurdly high, and intentionally so. They were meant for a particular people, bound in covenantal responsibility. Christianity flattens this into a one-size-fits-all framework, and then offers grace as the mechanism by which the burden is lifted.

But in doing so, it severs the relationship between effort and meaning. It transforms responsibility into guilt, and guilt into helplessness.

And the Jews? They remain, because they refuse to outsource moral responsibility.

And this is not limited to Christianity. Every system that promises moral closure, whether religious, secular, Marxist, or nationalist, will eventually find the Jew unbearable. Because Jewish thinking is not a moral conclusion. Jewish thinking is a moral process that does not let people off the hook.

Mansour’s insight - that antisemitism emerges from the breakdown of inward critique - is powerful, but it is incomplete. Teshuva is the missing piece, the glue that holds the Jewish texts together, the layer of responsibility that so many want to run away from. Without teshuva, prophetic critique is nonsensical, or an excuse for projection against Jews.

Modern antisemitism isn't a secularization of Christianity's misreading of the New Testament - it is a secularization of Christianity's rejection of Jews because they simply do not fit their philosophy.

UPDATE: Mansour gave a thoughtful response to me on Substack.