My friend David Nyström has commented (see comment) on my previous post on Israel and the Church, and I think his question is so important that I put the answer into an own post.
However, his question is a difficult one. David writes about supersessionism, and adds:
I’m also not very convinced by its most powerful alternatives (e.g. two-covenant theology and dispensationalism).
As David suggests, I am not only skeptic against supersessionism, but I am convinced that it is impossible to support supersessionism from the Bible. God will not fail to stand by his promises (of which the Hebrew Bible is full); as Paul says:
They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. (Rom 9:4–5 RSV)
The new covenant is no covenant with the gentiles—we have no covenant of our own—but with Israel. The only way to relate to the Messiah is through Israel (Eph 2:12–14). Therefore gentile Christians must learn that without Israel, no salvation. This must make us humble.
As Paul shows in Rom 9–11, the Messiah belongs to Israel, and salvation is first for the Jews, salvation through a Messiah who has come and will come back, Yeshua Hammashiach. However, we must be careful not to try figure out with our minds how their way to salvation works.
Christianity has culturally become a gentile thing because of history, and we have so many patterns which are form in an environment where Jewishness has been regarded enmity to the Messiah and the church. It is not. Europeanised Christianity has distorted Jesus into a person, which Jesus only with great difficulty can identify as their brother—compare Josef.
Misguided human solutions include a ‘messianism’, where non-Jews try to live in a Jewish way to come closer to the roots. But there are Noahidic laws, which are there for us gentiles, and we neither should or would benefit from ‘playing Jews’. Another misguided human solutionis of course where Jesus no longer us the Cornerstone or Stumbling block. He is, to the Jews first, then to the Greek. As already indicated, supersessionism is out of question, since it is incompatible with the Biblical teaching.
Remains perhaps to share Paul’s heart, (the same cry as Josef’s as he met his brothers): a deep love and burden for the brethren, no bullying ‘Here am I, and I have taken over your inheritance’, but a burden for his people, and faith in God’s sovereign solution. This will hardly come through a gentilised Christianity, but from within the Jewish Body itself.
Interesting and most important post Anders. In the light of the tragic anti-Semitic history of the church it cannot be stated to often that what you write “the new covenant is no covenant with the gentiles—we have no covenant of our own—but with Israel.” I agree. Supersessionism is definitely out of play. The tricky question though is to define the church to a non-Messianic Jew who certainly would claim that the church is not apart of Israel and the promises, but something else. But we as Christians need to humble ourselves and not only acknowledge put also preach our dependence upon the God of Abraham, Isac and Jacob. I think this we ought to do more in our churches. If this will win the Jews I do not know. But humility and honesty confronted with Biblical theology is a good start. Then we can only pray that God takes away the veil that certainly is in front of the eyes of non-Messianic Jews, so that they can believe in Messiah Jesus and be saved according to their own promises given to them by YHWH. Then they will see that we as gentiles by grace and grace alone have been grafted into their original olive tree.
I think we basically agree, Martin. This is no easy question, and Christians have not been known to be humble in this area. We need to remember that the root Israel is carrying us (Rom 10:17f).
Är det inte möjligt att se hela problemkomplexet inom ramen för Försynen; att tolka frågan om Israel såsom ett resultat av förstockelse (πώρωσις Rom 11:25) ett tillstånd som kommer fortgå ända tills hedningarna i fullt antal har nått målet? Därefter skall hela Israel bliva frälst…
I denna mening ligger alltså Gud bakom denna process på ett djupare plan (i bemärkelsen deus absconditus)…
Förbundet är alltså ett och detsamma: med Israel i vilket församlingen på grund av judarnas förstockelse blivit inympade i… Israels negativa respons visavi evangeliet är alltså en nödvändighet för hedningarnas inympande… I nuet är alltså den “sanna kyrkan (alla sant troende oberoende av kyrkotyp)” det äkta uttrycket för Guds förbund…
Den viktiga frågan i nuet gäller den del av Israel som inte tagit emot det frälsande evangeliet. Är dessa i förbundet eller avser Paulus endast förbundet giltigt för dem såsom en futral realitet vid Herrens ankomst?
Ett står åtminstone klart enligt Paulus: Gud har inte glömt sitt förbund med Israel och skall i futuralt hänseende också förnya detta…
Magnus
Friends, you have a very interesting discussion going on! I take the freedom to enter with some thoughts.
Magnus: I cannot see that the part of Israel that have not received the Gospel, should be outside of the covenant. The Old Testament Israelites who disobeyed the commandments, were still in covenant with God. We just have to remember that the covenant included blessings and curses. But even while under the curse, in the Babylonian exile for example, the promises (of a return) were still valid. How to understand this in relation to salvation is another question. I do not believe in a dual covenant theology that says Jews have their separate way to God outside of Jesus. But the promise that “all Israel will be saved” is still valid as it is part of the covenant.
Back to David’s question regarding the identity of the church as opposed to Judaism (hi David!): I believe it is important to note that Jesus fits within the Judaism of His day. Because of developments that have taken place after His time, mainly the rise of “Rabbinic Judasim” (I use this term for practical reasons although there is debate about its correctness), Jesus cannot easily fit into the Judaism of today. But this means that there were teachings in first century Judaism that could “explain” Jesus. We understand this from the fact that so many Jews, including rabbis and priests became His followers. My point then, is that the Christological and soteriological aspects of Christian tehology not necessesarily need to create problems. The church, I suggest, has no identity of its own, only as a part of Israel. But we have created a separate identity.
Hi Roar,
Thank you for your input. I’m attracted to the idea of seeing the church as part of Israel, ‘grafted into the pure vine’, as it were. However, it is precisely here the Christological and Soteriological problems surface. What, namely, do we then make of the Jews who don’t believe, the branches which, according to Paul, were broken off? If we, without qualification, see them as equally sharing a part of the covenant (affirming that there only is one) and as included in God’s saving economy, are we not compromising the Church’s eternal claim that salvation is only found through Christ, or more precisely, through faith in Christ? If we, on the other hand, claim that the unbelieving Jews really have been cut off and are not part of the covenant any longer, have we not then just made a full circle back to supersessionist theology?
I have never seen a satisfactory answer to this. The closest thing to an answer I have heard is the eschatological notion that in the end ‘all Israel will be saved’, but as an argument and explanation, it is very weak. If all Jews eventually receive Jesus as their Messiah and God, then the problem obviously is solved. However, we know that this isn’t the case since millions of Jews have already died without doing so. And if our theology demands that Jews receive Christ to obtain salvation, then what is the difference from what the supersessionists claim? And if we claim that Jews can be part of the covenant without necessarily receiving personal salvation, are we not really confirming a two covenant theology or some variant thereof?
I don’t expect full answers to all of these questions (I certainly can’t provide it), but I’m just trying to formulate what I find problematic in hope that someone might be able to bring more clarity.
I wrote the above comment before reading your answer to Magnus, and I see that you bring up some of the themes I comment upon. Would you care to elaborate on these? One of the problem, I believe, is that God’s covenant with Israel was not focused on the notion of personal salvation the way that Christian theology is…
David! Thanks for your comment. I agree with you, that this is not an easy issue, and there are many questions that are really hard to grapple with.
A comment on “all Israel will be saved”: What does “all Israel” (pas Israel)mean? Does it mean every single Jew; or a large majority; or those living at that particular time…? I have no answer, but find this a worthwile topic to study…someone?
You wrote: “And if our theology demands that Jews receive Christ to obtain salvation, then what is the difference from what the supersessionists claim?” Indeed, I believe that this is the biblical teaching; there is salvation only through Christ – also for the Jews.
The difference from the supersessionists is that the point of departure is and remains Israel. The cultivated olive tree is Israel and the gentile believers have been grafted into her; the church has been grafted into Israel – not the other way around. This is a major shift of attitude from what has traditionally been the position of the church where we have demanded that the Jews “join the church.”
Regarding salvation and covenant, do we have to assume that these are identical? Is being in the covenant the same as being saved. As I wrote in my previous comment, the covenant(s) of the Tanach includes both blessings and curses. So as I understand it, we should not see the covenant as invalid for the part of Israel that does not believe in Yeshua as their Messiah. They are still in the covenant, and the promises of the covenant are still available to them.
This brings us back to the concepts of individual and collective salvation. The Bible often speaks about a remnant, a holy remnant. In some instances, it seems that the task for the remnant is to bring salvation to the rest. I believe this is the idea in the servant songs of Isaiah where, in the beginning, Israel is the suffering servant, but in the end Israel stands aside and looks at a person that becomes the suffering servant – one might say, the personification of Israel. And here we read about him being wounded, and suffering for all Israel. If we connects this with Paul’s principle about the saved spouse who sanctifies her husband, perhaps we can see a similar “effect” regarding the remnant of today (Messianic Jews) and the rest of Israel. This is not a complete answer, but perhaps a possible starting point.
But in the end, a miracle is needed; how can branches that have been broken off, and presuambly are dead, be grafted into the olive tree again? It is in fact easier to see how live branches from another tree can be grafted in. But Romans 11:23 says that “God is able to graft them in again.” Praise God!
As you understand, I am still pondering these questions myself and is very thankful for this discussion.
Roar, thanks for your respond. Im going to try to answer this in english since you wrote in english (puh, its not gonna be easy).. Given the urgency in tone regarding Paul’s preaching (he said he rather be accursed, if it could save his fellow jews) — gives us the indication that Paul really believed that Jews outside of Christ were lost given the covenant and all the promises..
For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. (Rom 9:3 NRS)
It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel,
and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants; but “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.”
(Rom 9:6-7 NRS)
Also remember the lukan account of the preaching of John the Baptist
You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bear fruits worthy of repentance. Do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.
9 Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
(Luk 3:7-9 NRS)
16 John answered all of them by saying, “I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
(Luk 3:16-17 NRS)
And finally the johannean account of Jesus as the way, the truth and the life…
Being in the covenant is no ticket to the kingdom of God/Heaven. Its rather repent and believe the Gospel… Being in the covenant is conditional or even a factor of predestination (if one are bent towards a Calvinist perspective)….
the Question of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is at stake here.. Either he is Lord of all or not Lord at all.. This inlclude Jews who are denying Jesus as Messiah and God…
Magnus
Roar, thank you for your response.
The reason I’m pressing these questions is that I believe them to be very important. As I wrote earlier I find supersessionist theology extremely problematic. There are, certainly, powerful and consistent alternatives to this kind of theology, e.g. dispensationalism and two-covenant theology. My problem is that I find these equally problematic, albeit for other reasons. Therefore, I grapple with finding a third way, as it were. I agree with you that we have to have the right attitude and approach the question from the right angle; i.e. that God is faithful and that He never makes void His promises. Nevertheless, if I were to play the devil’s advocate for a while, I could counter and say that it matters little if we change our attitude but in the end settle for a theology that only differs from supersessionism in semantics.
I agree that the promise that all of Israel shall be saved is an important one. The reason I ‘dismissed’ it as an argument is that is precisely here we often retreat when supersessionist theologians press our conclusions to their logical end. Important as it is, it is a hapax, and an ambiguous one (what exactly does e.g. ‘Israel’ and ‘saved’ mean?). Also, we cannot deal with the soteriological problems by simply transposing them to the eschaton.
I’m not going to press this further here; we can discuss it more over a cup of coffee sometime
Just so you don’t misunderstand me: I basically agree with everything you write, but I think there are questions which need more reflection. You mention one, which I think is crucial, and that is how covenant relates to personal salvation. I’m sure there is much research on all of this which I haven’t yet taken part of. I’m not a systematician, and right now I’m wrapped up in other things, but when I get more time these are questions I would love to engage more thoroughly with.
All the best,
When Jesus said: “Noone comes to the Father but through me” he did not advocate a two-way/covenant theology. Jesus never said: “Noone except the Jews” but rather claimed to be “the way”, the only way to the Father for us all, Jew and Gentile alike.
Yes, that is the message of Paul in Roman 9–11. But note Paul’s love and urgency for his compatriots.
Hello all! Nice to see that you have a blog, Anders! I have been reading it for a while.
I wanted to notify you of a blogpost I wrote today about these discussions.
http://memyselfandtheology.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/israel-some-questions-and-remarks/
Bless you all,
respectfully,
Jelmer