Over at the Rosh Pina Project Joseph has written an interesting piece on that champion of Christian orthodoxy and defender of the traditional view of the divinity of Christ against the Arian heresy, Athanasius. Yet again, Joseph highlights this ongoing battle faced by MJs: a leading Church figure who defended orthodoxy yet who seemingly also spoke negatively of the Jews. Thus the essay points out how Jews who reject the Gospel juxtapose Athanasius' high Christology with his negative protrayal of the Jewish people, almost as if the two are somehow related. Joseph concludes:
The challenge then for those of us believers in Jesus with a high Christology is to demonstrate to Jewish people that we repudiate anti-Semitism, and that our Christology should lead us to a positive attitude towards the Jewish people, not a negative one.Now some may argue Athanasius was not truly anti-Semitic, that some secondary sources are biased in their anti-Christian interpretation and selective citation. Others better qualified in Church history than I in must decide. But this said, yet again we see another clear example of a Church which, throughout its history, has done itself no favours in the tone and nature of language it employs. It is quite one thing to challenge - and robustly at that - the theological distortion of Mosaic Judaism which is rabbinic Judaism. After all, the New Testament's Jewish writers squarely rejected such theology in their proclamation of Christ, who is the Jewish Messiah. Yet throughout much of its history, the Church's challenging of rabbinic Judaism has all too often degenerated into condemnation of the entire Jewish people themselves, so that criticism of a religious system has shifted to intense and vociferous criticism of an entire people.
Whilst we should redeem the more positive elements of Athanasius, sifting it away from the highly-charged politics of fourth-century Alexandria, we should loudly condemn the negative aspects of his writings.
Of all the identities he could have taken, our God chose to become a Jewish man with a Jewish body, living in first-century Israel. He lived with Jews, he breathed in and breathed out Jewish teachings, and he broke bread with Jews.
Unfortunately, we face a similar situation today. Unlike traditional Reformed supercessionism which has carefully eschewed highly charged anti-Israel political language, the New Supercessionism is all too often politically inflammatory, polarising and divisive in its anti-Israel stance. This is a pity, not only because it makes Jewish evangelism so much more difficult, but also because within those circles are some committed Evangelicals who genuinely hold to a strong Christology. Unfortunately, yet again Christian orthodoxy is associated with a movement which - rightly or wrongly - is perceived by Jewish people as deeply critical of an entire people. Thus the Gospel suffers. It's time to tone down the language.
25 comments:
Another useful article Calvin. Incidentally, Alex Jacobs makes similar comments in his book The Case for Enlargment Theology about the need to consider the effect of teaching upon Messianic Jews (I agree with much of what he says, but not all).
The first point to make is that from the time of Christ Judah is divided between those who accept him and those who do not. Messianic Jews are in a similar place to the first century Jewish-Christian community, torn between the Pauline gentile mission and the mission to Jews in Jerusalem. It is not an easy place to be in, but the New Testament, written by several Jews, a Leviite and a Benjaminite (and one Greek) has much to say to their situation today. We all need to embrace and understand the full Pauline message that speaks into this situation.
Many Messianic Jews generally see the Church as a gentile institution being separate to the Jewish community. I would urge them instead to see the Church as the true continuation of the Jewish branch that grew out of the root of Jesse, but that gentiles have been grafted in (Isaiah is full of references to Gentiles joining with God's Israelite people). 120 Jewish men also formed a lawfully established Jewish community in the upper room according to Jewish custom. There is a place for expressing Jewish culture within the Church, i.e. the communion table, the Hebrew bible, Psalm hymns, etc. but for me as a gentile I don't feel comfortable with attempts to Judaise the Church further back to some Old Covenant practices such as remembering the formal passover etc. We should allow different cultures, including Messianic Jews, to express their faith in ways that are not contrary to the gospel, but we need to allow other cultures to express their faith in a similar way.
I agree that subsequently as the Roman authorities took over the church the Jewish roots became more obscure. It was though I think God's intention to exclude Jews from Jerusalem under the power of Rome in AD 70 and AD 135 so that Christians could instead focus upon Christ and the new Jerusalem and forget the past. God's plan is moving forward. He called Abraham out of the Gentiles to bring forth the nation of Israel who could give birth to the Messiah. Israel I agree is an important part of the meta-narrative, but it is not the end of the narrative. The end of the narrative is in Jesus the Messiah who brings all things together in himself.
I believe we need to put history into context. Yes, non-Christians Jews have suffered, some unkind things have been written about them, but in context their plight is not isolated from history where views have been expressed more dogmatically. But generally speaking Jews were not burned at the stake as witches have been, and in many periods Jews have been tolerated because their continued existence has provided a witness to Christians in defence against pagans. Catholics and Protestants too have fought wars, killed each other and written some unpleasant things about each other.
I believe that Messianic Jews and Gentile New Testament Christians have a common cause in working towards the purity of the New Testament teaching and seeing the Church as being the true continuation of Israel. We need to look past the Christian errors of the past that has perhaps lost sight of the Church's Israelite root. In other words, I would hope that Messianic Jews come to feel at home amongst the wider Christian community.
As for evangelism. Its back to the Serbia / Albania example I gave previously where for the sake of evagelism we support military action against another people. I agree we do need to move beyond nationalistic politics and develop a global vision of peace, Justice and reconciliation for all people.
"But generally speaking Jews were not burned at the stake as witches have been, and in many periods Jews have been tolerated because their continued existence has provided a witness to Christians in defence against pagans."
Andrew, I am franky gobsmacked at this comment - have you not heard about Jews being burnt during the Spanish Inquisition, the pogroms inspired by the Russian Orthodox church, the crusades, etc etc? Not to mention the compromise, by many German Christians, with Nazism?
'gobsmacked'? Calvin was asking us to tone down our language James.
But some questions; to what extent has Jewish suffering been worse than Gentile suffering historically? In context, millions of Russians and other Europeans died in WWII as well as 6 million Jews.
To what extent does an emphasis on Jewish suffering as being worse, more extensive, or more significant than Gentile suffering actually hinder the gospel to Jews?
Remember that Protestants and Catholics have learnt to forgive and build trust in Europe since the Reformation. I would suggest the same proccess is necessary between Messianic Jews and other Christians today.
Andrew, thanks for commenting. Some thoughts...
Para 3: Yes, as a Gentile Christian I too eschew attempts to Judaise (in the Galatian sense) the Church. While recognising their unique insight as Jews, together with problems they face, the fact is I'm not a Jew, and attempts to Judaise Gentile believers (usually, it must be said, by ultra-pro-Israel Gentile Christians) is unfruitful and doctrinally untenable.
"It was.. think God's intention to exclude Jews from Jerusalem under the power of Rome in AD 70 and AD 135 so that Christians could instead focus upon Christ and the new Jerusalem and forget the past."
Interesting opinion, but what is your biblical/theological basis? It could almost be interpreted as God's judgment as a means of denying Jewish-Christian identity.
"Israel I agree is an important part of the meta-narrative, but it is not the end of the narrative."
No. But it is intimately associated with the end of that metanarrative. Soulen: Consummation and the God of Israel.
"We need to look past the Christian errors of the past..."
I agree. But don't you think we have a lot to learn from MJs here? They retain faith in Jesus, share Him constantly (at great personal cost) with fellow Jews deeply antagonistic to a faith which has been quite anti-Jewish, and also readily forgive Christians throughout Church history who have spoken negatively about their countrymen. So why shouldn't we reciprocate and acknowledge our errors in the past, regardless of whether we are Christian Zionists or not?
I fear our lack of generosity towards MJs is reminiscent of the older brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son. Some within the Church seem distinctly threatened by the return of prodigal Israel, regardless of our views of Israel.
Thanks Calvin - My theological basis is simply God’s sovereignty. God allowed it to happen for a purpose; admittedly my interpretation of that purpose may be wrong, but it is a strong contender I would argue. The Jews were excluded from Jerusalem in AD135 by Hadrian to the point where they were not even allowed to look upon it – the leadership of the Jerusalem Church transferred to Gentiles at that time, and the Jerusalem Church assimilated with Gentile Christians in the rest of the area to the point where their identity disappeared, something some previously had trouble with according to the New Testament (Gal. 2:11-12). Perhaps now God in his sovereignty is allowing a Messianic Jewish identity to re-emerge in the land, but I fear that there is a lot of pressure towards war on both sides because of intransigence, and some Christian Zionists (but not all) are inadvertently making the situation more dangerous for Messianic believers by taking a very strong political stance.
To some extent I agree about the meta-narrative of Israel, but from a different angle. Reformed theology considers that Jesus became Israel (see Holwerda – One Covenant or Two). In Matthew’s Gospel we see Jesus baptised in the Jordan, then going into the wilderness to be tempted for 40 days (compares with the Israelite Exodus and wanderings), then Jesus fulfilled the Law and became the perfect sacrifice. So Jesus prophetically completed what Israel had failed to do. He became our righteousness through his life and death. In Hebrews we see Jesus as the lamb, the priest and the temple.
In Isaiah we see also that northern Israel and much of Judah was to become as a burnt stump of wood (Isa.7:4), but that a branch would grow out of the root of Jesse. So Israel is reduced to a remnant and the Messiah grows out of that remnant. “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called, Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6). “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit (Isa. 11:1).” Or consider Isaiah 49:3-5 where God says that "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendour…And now the LORD says— he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself.” It is as if the Messiah was to become Israel in order to save and restore / re-gather Israel, and that when we are grafted into Christ we join with Israel.
I agree we need to address past sins and repent of them, but if it becomes a running sore without acceptance of repentance then that is not so healthy. I too share a desire to heal the division.
Part II - I would ask though whether there is another perspective to this; that is to consider that some of the harshest things written about Jews in the Bible come from other Jews. In this light, when Gentiles like Athanasius defend Christian faith and uphold Scripture they are engaging in an internal Jewish dispute from the outside, but they are not instigators of it. I can understand that Messianic Jews feel under siege by other Jews, but there are some hard passages in the Hebrew Bible that was written by Jews (see for instance Jeremiah 24:8-10, Isaiah 65, or John calling some a ‘synagogue of Satan’ Rev. 2:9). This can be very difficult for Jews who are presently outside of Christ as well, but it is firstly an internal debate in the life of the Jewish people and it doesn’t really address the problem by placing all the blame upon Gentiles (perhaps there is some blame for Gentiles for insensitive writing in the past). I would suggest that Messianic Jews would find more comfort by embracing with Gentile Christians and recognise that the division in Judah and the harsh language did not begin with Gentiles, but within the Hebrew Scriptures. Gentile Christians have been grafted into Christ (who I believe is now central to the life of Israel) and apologists over the centuries have come to take a position within the division of Judah as they develop apologetics for Christian faith, but they are not the cause of that division. However, we do have a duty to seek to heal the rift. I would suggest that the parable of the prodigal son in context speaks of the division in Judah, between those who knew they were sinners and repented and those too proud and disdainful to accept Christ and their once unholy brethren; or it may even echo partly the division between the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Of course if Gentiles become arrogant towards Jews then we do take the place of the older son as you rightly say. Our commission as Christians is to work for peace, justice and reconciliation between all people, including Jews Israelites and Gentiles.
Andrew,
I wasn't aware that "gobsmacked" was an inflammatory term.
I find your response deeply disturbing. It is not a competition about who has suffered most, nor should we overlook the sufferings of Gentiles. I do however detect in your comments a distinct coldness towards Jewish suffering which, frankly, is to your shame and, take it from me, does little to commend the gospel to anyone.
Dear Andrew
The New Covenant was proclaimed to the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jer 31.31) long before Jesus made His appearance in physical form.
It was later ratified by Jesus at the last supper (Matt 26.26-28) to His Jewish disciples.
No covenant has ever been made with the gentiles, not even the gentile church.
Also to say that gentiles have written some 'insensitive' words against the Jews is putting it mildly to say the least, or have you not considered the writings of Martin Luther against the Jews that had a direct effect on the Nazis believing they were only obeying the teachings of the church?
For nigh on 2000 years the Jew has been dispersed to the four corners of earth, his religion usurped, vilified for simply being a Jew, now begins to return to his own land and the whole world is up in arms.
Strange how they have kept their distinct identity as a nation throughout the millennia of dispersion, and contribute more to civilization than any other people on earth.
The Bible in your hand? from the Jews
The Messiah in your heart? from the Jews. Because all this is not some cosmic god who fell to earth from the skies, but a real man with a real history and a real and living culture.
The gentiles, and especially, they that claim to believe in this Jewish Messiah, do well look into the history of this people a little more ardently and give support to a beleaguered nation that has many forces arrayed against it, not to mention even the 'church'.
This does not mean we support every deed perpetrated by fallen men, but neither do we single out one people for special opprobrium.
Chris and James - it is hard responding when I am aware that I am in danger of being accused of being hateful to Jews simply for trying to interpret the Jewish Scriptures as Jesus understood them. But why not start by reading Luke 4 and Isaiah 61 and ask yourselves what it means.
Andrew, I didn't accuse you of being hateful to Jews "simply for trying to interpret the Jewish Scriptures as Jesus understood them": please stop mischaracterising what I wrote. I will simply repeat what I said earlier: I find your apparent coldness to Jewish suffering deeply disturbing. The fact is that church history is deeply stained with anti-Jewish attitudes, words and actions; correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem either largely ignorant of that history, or else rather too willing to contextualise it by saying that, because Catholics and Protestants have also suffered at each others' hands, therefore we shouldn't make as much of Jewish suffering as we perhaps do. Again, I find this deeply disturbing.
Dear Andrew, first of all I don't accuse you of anything, hopefully we are only discussing in an amicable manner.
Tyndale translates the Bible into English, the KJV translators 'plagiarise' his work and do not even give him credit.
The 'church' has usurped from the Synagogue (and by the way 'synagogue of satan' Rev 2.9 refers to those who claim to be Jews and they are not. I wonder who that may be, could it be the 'church'?)
The church took from the Jews (the liturgy, service, promises etc) and merely claimed the blessings for itself while at the same time apportioning the 'curses' to the Jews, ( read any sub headings of most gentlle bibles and you will see what I mean)
But Scripture cannot be altered, Rom 3.2 .....unto them (the Jews) were committed the oracles of God. Not to the Vatican nor to Westminster but only to Jerusalem.
Has the church ever shown such love for the Jews as Paul expresses in Rom 9.2....for I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh'. ?
In response to James - you repeat that you find my comments display 'coldness' towards Jews and that your impression of my views is 'deeply disturbing' and 'to my shame.' In response, my desire to judge rationally without undue emotion is about justice and equality for all so that we do not become hot headed towards one side or the other. I might suggest that some Christian Zionists show a lack of concern for Palestinian suffering, or that some CZs are actually looking forward to Israel being reduced to 144,000 people, but tit for tat arguments are not really helpful. If you want context consider that Luther came to beleive that the Anabaptists should be executed for their apparent heresy. My desire is to develop a balanced view so that we can help to end future suffering on all sides.
In reponse to Chris - the first covenant was made with Abraham then a Gentile (the GK word gentile is 'ethnos' and is used in much the same way we use 'ethnic', so even Jews are an ethnos). When we are born again we all enter into a covenant relationship with God. The New Covenant was promised through the prophets, but fulfilled in Christ who became Israel. God in his mercy wishes to include Gentiles in the Church that I believe is in continuity with Israel. The GK word Ekklesia, meaning Church, is used for the congregation of Israel in the Septuagint. The universal Church was started by Christ with 12 apostles and 120 Jewish men, then grew quickly on the day of Pentecost as many Jews and Israelites joined them. But Judah was divided at that time. Whatever the faults of the Church in the past, it is God's kingdom on earth today as the body of Christ and I believe the new covenant with the house of Judah and the house of Israel i.e. the birthright and the sceptre together.
Dear Andrew,Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews. He is not Israel, but He is the king of Israel.
We can argue semantics and church history all day long and it will get us nowhere, however, may I take this opportunity to recommend 'Future Israel by Barry E Horner' a reformed theologian, if you should take them time to look into his writings, freely available online, I'm sure you will find them challenging if not enlightening!
Dear Andrew, the kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17.21) .....you are the temple of God......(1 Cor 3.16) and 'For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them, (Matt 18.20)
The Ecclesia/church, is not to be found in any denomination, hierarchy, synod or whatever name you wish to call organized religion, but they are certainly not the kingdom of God on earth.
Dear Chris - OK I will read Horner's book in time, David Holwerda's book 'Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two?' is one you might wish to read.
The Universal Church is not the same as the visible church or any one denomination. It is made up of believers of old, including those who lived before Christ and were faithful. Consider the transfiguration where Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ to Peter, James and John bearing witness of Christ as the fulfillment of the law and prophets and passing the batton to the three disciples.
The metaphor that Paul uses in Romans 9-11 of the root is one that appears in the first 13 chapters of Isaiah. Israel is cut down to a stump, and then the tender shoot the Messiah who is God grows out of the root of Jesse. Only a remnant of Isarael is saved at first.
In Romans 9-11 Gentiles are grafted into the root that is Israel. In John 15 we are grafted into Christ. In Isaiah 65:8-9 God finds some fruit in the vine and promises to not destroy them all. The 'chosen ones' in Isa. 65:9 is the faithful remnant of Judah, but because of election rebellious Israel is still loved.
Dear Andrew, Philip Mauro's book 'The Hope of Israel' is a classic of replacement theology, call it what you will, its nature is the same: to usurp the promises to Israel onto the church.
Now his book was refuted by Samuel Hinds Wilkinson - The Israel Promised and Their fulfillment.
David Holwerda is only following in the tradition of Philip Mauro.
One of the main sources for that kind of allegorical (or spiritualizing) interpretation of Scripture comes from the so called church fathers (though Jesus said 'call no man father....' Matt 23.9) who were influenced by greek philosophy and other pagan ideas. Something worthwhile looking into.
Though much of their writings are sound but when it comes to the Jews we detect a somewhat hostile anti-judaic spirit still prevalent today.
Dear Chris - thanks for those links - the disagreement is really whether Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets or whether national Israel today fulfills the law and the prophets. Having previously wondered whether the prophets spoke partly about national Israel today, I now believe that the prophets spoke strongly about Jesus. I found interpreting the prophets within a Christian Zionist mindset to be very bitty, whereas when you read them in light of the Messiah and the 1st century AD they form a consistent message. I struggled as well to understand how national Israel could bear fruit apart from Christ in light of John 15.
I don't see this as being over spiritualising theology because Jesus came in the flesh and fulfilled the law and the prophets. It is an incarnational approach to Israel. In fact John Hagee (and JN Darby) sees the Church as spiritual Israel inheriting spiritual promises and the Jews as earthly Israel inheriting earthly promises which is more a form of gnosticism. Instead the covenantal approach brings Israel, as the spiritual, the fleshly and the earthly together in Christ. The land of Canaan remained the promised land in Jesus, but that its borders were extended to cover the whole earth which is why we have Romans 8 as part of Paul's message. The whole of creation is waiting for the sons of God to be revealed - not just the promised land in the Middle East that was to flow with milk and honey.
The covenantal approach doesn't reject Jews altogether beleving that God seeks to bring them back into the true vine in the present time and in the future.
Dear Andrew, we can go on with this for ever, but I would like to leave you with a few thoughts and bid you adieu.
Acts 4.12
1 Cor 13.12
and finally, ......your life is hid with Christ in God.
when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with him in glory. Col 3.3-4
Hi Calvin,
Bit of a long winded comment:
A story is told of Golda Meir, the former Israeli Prime Minister, who in the early 1970s pleaded with then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for United States support of Israel in view of what shortly thereafter became the Yom Kippur War. Kissinger responded ‘Madam Prime Minister, I would remind you that first of all I am an American, secondly, I am the Secretary of State; and thirdly I am a Jew’. Golda Meir apparently responded ‘Sir, that is not a problem, because in Israel we read from right to left’.
Perhaps it would be profitable to consider the issues raised here in a ‘right to left’ manner also, that is a Hebraic point of view. It is a point of view in distinction but not necessarily in contradiction to the classic Hellenistic viewpoint which has pervaded our history. I have 4 points:
1) The first issue that comes to our attention is that of the identity of God, himself. We find that the bible describes his identity in a particular and concrete fashion. Of course our Hellenistic minds prefer universal categories and a preference for the abstract and universal over against the particular, yet the Bible is uniquely concrete and historical, not metaphysical and abstract.
In approx 3,000 OT incidents and a further 1,400 NT references the word ‘God’ is used – always though, with reference to a specific ‘God’, ie. the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and not some abstract, universal sense. Paul makes reference in Rom 1:1 to the ‘gospel of God’, note this reference is not to an abstract gospel, a gospel full stop so to speak. The same terminology occurs at the end of Romans [15:16]; three times in 1 Thessalonians, Mark’s gospel and 1 Peter. Paul has good news to proclaim – good news regarding God, and for him that means the God of Israel. The proclamation of Christianity, at its most fundamental level is that of the God of Israel – of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who has acted in Jesus for the sake of the whole world.
As Christians perhaps we have lost sight of the specificity and particularity of God’s identity. This identity was even revealed to Moses with a proper name. Of course in tradition the name is distorted to read as Jehovah, but YHWH, which is read as Adonai, the LORD, in Jewish tradition is used approx 3,000 times in the OT. This God then has a name, an identity and in his gracious free will choice chose to identify himself with a particular family through whom He would bless every family on earth. Supersessionism fails in this regard as it has a defective view of God, thinking in abstract and universal terms, which leads me to my next point.
Hi Calvin,
A story is told of Golda Meir, the former Israeli Prime Minister, who in the early 1970s pleaded with then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for United States support of Israel in view of what shortly thereafter became the Yom Kippur War. Kissinger responded ‘Madam Prime Minister, I would remind you that first of all I am an American, secondly, I am the Secretary of State; and thirdly I am a Jew’. Golda Meir apparently responded ‘Sir, that is not a problem, because in Israel we read from right to left’.
Perhaps it would be profitable to consider the issues raised here in a ‘right to left’ manner also, that is a Hebraic point of view. It is a point of view in distinction but not necessarily in contradiction to the classic Hellenistic viewpoint which has pervaded our history. I have 4 points:
1) The first issue that comes to our attention is that of the identity of God, himself. We find that the bible describes his identity in a particular and concrete fashion. Of course our Hellenistic minds prefer universal categories and a preference for the abstract and universal over against the particular, yet the Bible is uniquely concrete and historical, not metaphysical and abstract.
In approx 3,000 OT incidents and a further 1,400 NT references the word ‘God’ is used – always though, with reference to a specific ‘God’, ie. the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and not some abstract, universal sense. Paul makes reference in Rom 1:1 to the ‘gospel of God’, note this reference is not to an abstract gospel, a gospel full stop so to speak. The same terminology occurs at the end of Romans [15:16]; three times in 1 Thessalonians, Mark’s gospel and 1 Peter. Paul has good news to proclaim – good news regarding God, and for him that means the God of Israel. The proclamation of Christianity, at its most fundamental level is that of the God of Israel – of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who has acted in Jesus for the sake of the whole world.
As Christians perhaps we have lost sight of the specificity and particularity of God’s identity. This identity was even revealed to Moses with a proper name. Of course in tradition the name is distorted to read as Jehovah, but YHWH, which is read as Adonai, the LORD, in Jewish tradition is used approx 3,000 times in the OT. This God then has a name, an identity and in his gracious free will choice chose to identify himself with a particular family through whom He would bless every family on earth. Supersessionism fails in this regard as it has a defective view of God, thinking in abstract and universal terms, which leads me to my next point.
Part 2
2) In my view supersessionism suffers from a defective meta narrative or ‘big picture’ approach to scripture. Your interest in Biblical Theology strongly suggests that you really won’t need me to describe the challenges [or the history of attempts] of how to connect the ‘big picture’ of the OT with the ‘big picture’ of the NT. It has been suggested by such as Justin Martyr that the overriding narrative of scripture is the story of redemption, thus the OT paves the way for, points to and is type and shadow of a future reality – Jesus- who would come. Others have termed this the ‘scarlet thread of redemption’. If this is the ‘big story’ then in effect Israel has little if any role now that Jesus has accomplished that which he came to do. Indeed, how often do we hear gospel presentations that begin in Genesis 1, 2 & 3 [creation and fall], then jump to Matthew’s gospel and the birth of Jesus. Thus we have creation, the fall, the redeemer and eventually the consummation in ‘heavenly Jerusalem’. This is the classic narrative, but is it true? Well yes it is – God is a redeemer; but it is not the whole picture. In the standard model most of the OT is irrelevant or at best indecisive for formulating theology for all that is required is the first three chapters of Genesis [the rest is for illustrative purposes only]. When it comes to telling the story of redemption, it may be achieved with no reference to the ‘God of Israel’, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc. I suggest that the ‘big story’ is not ultimately about the church, you, me, or even about Israel. It is about God, who sovereignly elected to identify himself with Abraham and his offspring. Supersessionism then reduces the God who is a creator and consummator to the role of Redeemer only. The big story is that God is a creator who wishes to bless, and in order to do so he covenants with a people. In the process His purposes are side tracked by sin, which he deals with; hence of course redemption is vitally important, but it is a sub theme.
Part 3
3) Thirdly, supersessionism suffers from an over reliance upon a linear ‘promise-fulfilment’ paradigm. Such a hermeneutic is perfectly valid and useful, but it is not the only one and of course it may be mis applied. Consider: Jesus used it when preaching at the synagogue in Nazareth. He asked for and read from the scroll of Isaiah, declaring its fulfilment that day to those listening. This is of course perfectly straight forward. Conversely however, consider Matthew’s record of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says ‘I have come not to abolish the Torah, but to fulfil it’. We tend to read this with a ‘promise –fulfilment’ hermeneutic also, but in fact Jesus is saying nothing of the sort. ‘Abolish’ and ‘fulfil’ were rabbinic terms at the time, meaning ‘I have not come to misinterpret the Torah, so as to abolish it by undermining it; but to properly interpret the Torah, so as to lead to correct conduct and thereby bring the Torah to its intended fulfilment’. Consequently when we follow Jesus’ example to love God and our neighbours, then in a very real sense we also fulfil the Torah.
With an incorrect hermeneutic then, Supersessionism sees Jesus as the ‘fulfilment’ of Israel and therefore the end of the Torah. But there is a problem which may be thought of in the following terms. If I take a catalogue and wish to buy a jumper I place an order. The catalogue makes a promise and so a contract is made. The company then ‘fulfils’ the order and I receive my nice new jumper, but what will I do with the catalogue??? Throw it in the bin for it has served its purpose. It has given me a picture of the reality to come, promised me delivery in due time, achieved that delivery and now may be dispensed with. This is the type of logic at work in Supersessionist theology – the OT becomes a type of ‘catalogue’, a largely unnecessary relic. The bible however is not a catalogue; it is covenant history and should be read as such.
4) Finally supersessionism suffers from an unfortunate reductionism in the distinction between Jew and Gentile based upon a misapplication of Galatians 3:28. When this verse is taken to state that Jesus abolished all distinction between Jew and Gentile then scripture becomes violated for Paul continues to make this distinction in his writings – because the distinction was established by God himself. Moses states it aptly in Deut 32:8. Indeed through Abraham God intends to bless, and for that blessing to exist, there is a requirement for an ‘other’ to be blessed. Paul’s point then is that through Jesus the division or divisiveness between Jew and Gentile is removed but not the distinction. That continues even into the consummation of all things [to Jerusalem will come the kings of the Gentiles bearing gifts – Rev 21:22-24].
When we reduce or abolish the God-given distinction between Jew and Gentile, between Israel and the nations, we engage in a kind of forced uniformity, whereas the bible speaks of unity. There is of course a difference. When all is said and done, in the final consummating act of God’s creation, the key player will not be the church, it will not be the nations, it will be Israel. And together the nations shall stream up to Jerusalem for blessing, worship and fellowship. Indeed when the Son of Man returns it will not be to London, New York, my native South Wales or any other random place. It will be to Jerusalem.
Christian history sadly attests to the fact that when the universal Christ is removed from the Jewish matrix of his incarnate existence and the historical particularity of God’s irrevocable covenant with the Jewish nation, the results are supersessionism, an adversarial relationship with Judaism and even anti-semitism. I believe your original post is correct and that the time has come to move beyond inflammatory language, the history of contempt, and humbly and gratefully acknowledge the indissoluble bond we Christians have with the Jewish people, particularly those who have come to love Jesus as their Messiah and also to reassess the place of Israel and the church in God’s story.
David - I just wonder why there is a need to characterise all views that are different to Christian Zionism as supercessionist. As I have said numerous times, Calvin's type of Covenantal theology places the Church in unity and continuity with the faithful remnant of Biblical Israel. i.e. it is not a position that replaces Israel, but includes faithful Israel at the start. Jesus came out of the root of Jesse and we are grafted into him. The house of Judah though is presently divided between those who are in Christ and those who are not. But now this faithful Judah/Israel, the Universal Church, needs to work to bring all, Jews and gentiles to Christ.
In terms of the Torah, Jesus fulfilled it by perfectly obeying it and now he gives us his law-fulfilled life. I might ask why we gentiles are not circumcised? - it is even a requirement of Abraham's covenant. The reason is that when we are in Christ and he is in us we receive his circumcision. Christ fulfilled the law, circumcised on the 8th day, and now gives us his life. He also writes the law on our hearts. So fulfilled doesn't mean end.
In Ephesians 2 we find that Christ has abolished the dividing wall [a dividing wall that existed in the temple] of hostility between Jews and Gentiles and made the two into one body that is being built up into a holy temple. Yes there may be different identities, Jews, Africans, Asias, Europeans, but we are all one in Christ and for Christians our separate identity is not important spiritually. Of the many Jews who joined the church at the start I am sure there are many physical descendents throughout the world today although their Jewish identity is now lost. Throughout history Jews have converted, some forced yes, but many have come to faith in a proper manner, but later their descendents lost their Jewish identity. The Christian Church has a strong Jewish dimension, spiritually and ethnically and I would argue legally as well.
Paul I think spells it out in Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3 and its easy to read at Biblegateway in any version you like - even the JN Darby version that my grandmother had from the exclusive brethren.
Post a Comment