Israel's Eternal Covenant and the Universality of Christ

R. Kendall Soulen

Wesley Theological Seminary

Introduction

Thank you.  It’s a great honor to be have been invited to address you, and I’d like to express appreciation for importance of the work you do.   The recent comments of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad remind us of how vital the work is of organizations such as those you represent here tonight.

Our theme, as I understand it, can be expressed this way: how should Christians understand the relation of God’s eternal covenant with the Jewish people and universal significance of Christ?  In responding to this question, I will speak as a Christian theologian, whose responsibility is to state the truth as clearly and faithfully as I can acknowledging my location in a particular tradition, namely, that of the Christian church, and in particular as a United Methodist as someone who stands in the Reformation traditions of the Western church.

I propose to organize my brief remarks in three sections:

n       First, I wish to say a word about how I think Christians should generally not understand the relation of God’s eternal covenant with the Jewish people and universal significance of Christ

n       Second, explain some general principals or guidelines that in my opinion should guide Christian thought about the relation

n       And third, try to flesh out one way in which those general principles or guidelines could be applied, acknowledging that there might also be other and better ways.

How Christians Should Not Approach the relation of God’s eternal covenant with the Jewish people and universal significance of Christ

In view of the church’s long history of supersessionism and anti-Judaism, Christians today may be tempted to believe that Christians can and should affirm God’s irrevocable covenant with the Jewish people as a kind of independent theological fact, one that stands on its own independently of the Christian tradition, and then on that basis go on in a kind of second step and ask how – given the independent truth of God’s covenant with Israel – they should understand God’s work in Jesus Christ, including Christ’s universality.

In my view, this approach – while viable and perhaps necessary for Jewish religious thinkers - would be a mistake for Christians to adopt for three reasons:

n       1) it short circuits sound practices of Christian theology, which proceed from the center of Christian tradition, from gospel of Jesus Christ 

n       2) it leaves the Christian affirmation of God’s covenant with Israel unsupported, vulnerable to being easily dismissed by those who approach Jewish-Christian dialogue from the “outside,” so to speak

n       3) It is probably not really possible for Christians anyway.  When Christians affirm God’s irrevocable covenant, they will necessarily do so in terms that are for better or worse Christian.  We can see that in formulation of our topic, which has a notably Christian ring to it (“saved”).

In short, Christians should assume responsibility for the fact that when they do affirm God’s irrevocable election of Israel , they will do so as Christians and for reasons that are in the final analysis Christian in nature, and that will not necessarily be shared by Jews.  (Christians can’t jump over their own shadow).

How We Should in General Terms

Positively, then, what can we say about how Christians the relation of God’s eternal covenant with the Jewish people and universal significance of Christ?  What general guidelines might we suggest?

My suggestion, in a nutshell, is that that Christians should understand each of these affirmations in and through the other, as both illuminated  and made possible by the other.  That is, in my view, it is because of the story of what God has done in Jesus Christ that Christians can believe that God has an eternal covenant with the Jewish people.  Conversely, I think that it is because of what the Scriptures testify about God’s covenant with the Israel that Christians can and should affirm that what Jesus Christ is universal. I take something like this to be very much of the essence of Paul reasoning in Romans 9-11.

One implication of this approach is that according to Christian faith as I understand it, Jews are not saved by their eternal covenant apart from God’s saving action in Jesus Christ. But the other implication is that Christians cannot understand who Jesus is and his universality apart from affirmation of God’s enduring covenant with Israel .

Now, Christians, have generally only gone in one direction on this path.  They have affirmed Christ’s universality helped us to understand the nature of God’s covenant with the Jews, but they have not affirmed that God’s irrevocable covenant with the Jews helps us to understand Jesus Christ.   Therefore, Christians have in fact interpreted the universality of Christ in ways that are supersessionist, that hold that God covenant with Israel is

n       Temporary

n       revoked, etc.

However, it seems to me that Christians in fact stand much closer to the heart of the Scriptures of Israel and the Apostolic Witness when they see that both affirmation shed light on each other, when they go in both directions on the path. 

What would it mean concretely for Christians to understand Christ’s universality in light of Israel ’s enduring election?  Obviously, there is a great deal to say here.  But in my view, the heart of a non-supersessionist Christology rests in a relatively simple but very profound conceptual move: Christians should understand everything that God does in Christ as the confirmation of God’s eternal covenant with Judaism as a blessing for the nations against every possible danger or threat.  Here instead of confirmation we could also say vindication, ratification, enforcement, activation.  Indeed, we could even say “fulfillment,” were it not for the fact that this term has come to be loaded with supersessionistic implications. 

When we look at things from this point of view, Christians would be able to say:

BECAUSE OF (not despite!) what God does in Jesus Christ, I therefore affirm

n       God’s covenant with Israel is not temporary,

n       not revoked etc.

One Way of Fleshing Out the Guidelines In More Particular Terms

Now, I think Christians could flesh out the guidelines I just mentioned in a number of ways.  Let me conclude by very briefly indicating one way, which I attempt to sketch out in greater detail in a book entitled The God of Israel and Christian Theology (Fortress, 1996).

At the heart of Christian faith as I understand it is an affirmation something like this: “The God of Israel acted in Jesus Christ with saving power for everyone.”  Christians unpack this affirmation by telling a story with two trajectories

• Creation to Consummation – a story that begins with what is Good (Creation) and looks forward to something still great or better (Consummation – the fulfillment of life in relationship with God and one another)

• Sin and Redemption – human resistance against God’s good plans, and God’s redeeming work that persists in pursuing the greater good that God desires (Consummation)

Now, the traditional way in which Christians have flesh out these two trajectories has entailed supersessionism.  But it needn’t be that way.

Creation – Consummation: Traditional and revised Views

In my opinion, much traditional Christian theology’s great weakness is that it has a very thin, almost semi-Gnostic understanding of the first trajectory.  It is focused on Gen. 1-3, and leaves out God’s covenant with Israel .  God’s original purpose is oriented toward a kind of abstract human nature that exists apart from God’s covenant with Israel .  This makes it easy to think of God’s covenant with Israel as a temporary instrument or expedient.

But what if we were to understand the trajectory of Creation – Consummation more thickly, in terms of the center of Israel ’s Scriptures?  In that case, we might say that the goal for the sake of which God created the world was

• relations of mutual blessing between those who are different, between God and creation, between humankind and other natural kinds, between male and female, and supremely, between Israel and nations, Jew and gentile.  On this view, the distinction between Jew and Gentile is not a problem to be overcome, but a permanent feature of God’s dealings with the world. Accordingly, God’s will for the Jewish people to exist is also irrevocable. 

 

Sin – Redemption

If we adopt the second point of view, then the Apostolic Witness’ testimony to Jesus Christ is about how God seeks to rescue or deliver this economy from danger.  Then Christ is universal because everything he has accomplished and will accomplish – in the past, in the present, and in the eschatological future - he does for the sake of realizing God’s intention to make God’s covenant with the Jewish people both eternal and a blessing for the nations.

Non-Supersessionistic Consequences

This is indeed something much newer in Christian tradition, and it leads us to critique and reject supersessionism.

n       God’s covenant not temporary, not revoked

n       Jews who do not acknowledge gospel are not therefore repudiated by God, but God remains faithful to promises

n       Allows room for Gentile church to recognize that appropriate form of its mission activity is not active mission among Jews, but to be witness of spirit. 

This is closer to the letter and spirit of both Old and New Testaments when they understand the relationship between Christ’s universality and God’s eternal purpose for Israel reciprocally. 

Conclusion

In sum, my chief claim is that Christians understand the relationship between Christ’s universality and God’s eternal purpose for Israel reciprocally, as interpreting and enabling the other.  I’ve also sketched out one way, but acknowledge that there may be other and better ways of doing the same thing (in fact I’m trying to develop one myself). 

Now, on even on this second view, Christians and Jews will still disagree about the universality of Christ and about the way in which God’s covenant with Israel is eternal.  But they will agree that God’s covenant with the Jewish people is eternal.  And this, it seems to me, is an important step in the right direction.