Israel and Christian Theology: Some Effects of the New Majority View

By Ronald E. Diprose [1]

Introduction

A generation before the infamous Dreyfus trial prompted Theodor Herzl in 1896 to write his Zionist manifesto The Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution to the Jewish Question and to convene the first World Zionist Congress in Switzerland the following year, Carlo Antonio Zanini debated with representatives of the Jewish community in the public library of Mantova, Italy. At that time the majority of Christian theologians subscribed to the view that the Church had totally replaced Israel in redemption history. Zanini did not share this view. Rather he espoused a minority evangelical view based on Scripture. [2] Central to the understanding of Zanini was the following threefold conviction: 1) Israel remains God’s elect people and, as such, will return to live as a sovereign nation in the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; 2) Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah prophesied by the Hebrew prophets; and 3) the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles is possible only through faith in the atoning work of Jesus.

Marco Mortara, the chief Rabbi of Mantova, dedicated his Passover discourse in 1868 to addressing the issues raised by Zanini. The Rabbi’s response echoed some of the recommendations made by Jewish Rabbis who had met at Vienna earlier that same year. These included recommendations to remove from Jewish liturgy all reference to the coming of a personal Messiah and to avoid all talk of a return to the promised land. [3] Although Zanini’s Jewish interlocutors at Mantova showed no sympathy with the idea of Israel returning to the land of her fathers, the Christian evangelist lived long enough to see a significant part of world Jewry change its mind on this point. Before the close of the nineteenth century Zanini was also able to document the presence of five hundred Messianic Jews living in the territory now known as Israel. [4] Moreover he was himself instrumental in leading some members of the Italian Jewish community to faith in Yeshua as Messiah and Savior. [5]

Much has happened since the close of the nineteenth century. In particular the faith of Evangelical Christians such as Zanini, that Israel would regain Statehood, has been vindicated, against all human odds. On the other hand, the second and third points to which Zanini drew the attention of his Jewish interlocutors, that Yeshua is the long awaited Messiah of Israel who “must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets” (Acts 3:21) and that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12), have not found general acceptance. On the contrary, these apostolic affirmations are being increasingly either denied or ignored by Christian theologians involved in the Jewish-Christian dialogue.

Such denial or neglect of key elements of the apostolic gospel is linked with Christendom’s new majority view concerning Israel. Proponents of this view, by appealing to passages such as Romans 9–11, have overturned the main thesis of the old majority view, according to which Israel lost her covenant status as an elect nation by failing to recognize Yeshua as the promised Messiah. [6] The conviction that Israel retains her elect status has led exponents of the new majority view to make a second affirmation, that Judaism is as much a means of salvation for the Jewish as Christianity is for non-Jewish nations. This affirmation ignores key elements of the apostolic gospel such as those cited above.

The new majority view is often linked with the “two-covenant” model, according to which there is one covenant for the Jewish people and another for Gentile peoples. [7] Recently this position has been defined as “theology of recognition” with reference to Christians recognizing Israel’s status as a covenant nation. [8] This raises serious questions concerning the Christian gospel and the Church’s mission.

My purpose in the present paper is to explore ways in which the “theology of recognition” is influencing the following disciplines of Christian theology: Christology, Soteriology and Missiology, as well as the discipline of Hermeneutics. First, however, I will trace the origins of the new majority view.

In the Wake of Tragedy

The horrors of the Shoah and the subsequent birth of the modern State of Israel on May 14, 1948, were decisive factors in bringing about Christendom’s radical change of mind concerning the present and future status of Israel. [9] The Shoah disqualified the old majority view by revealing its nefarious effects. The trenches and massacres of what is known to history as the first World War (1914–1918) had shocked the civilized nations of Western Europe. But wars like that, albeit on a smaller scale, had taken place throughout the entire history of fallen man. Hitler’s plan to humiliate and exterminate the Jewish people was unparalleled. It was the incarnation of all that is evil in human nature.

In terms of responsibility, the tragedy of the Shoah cannot be attributed exclusively to the Third Reich. Most Western so-called “Christian” nations became accomplices in this catastrophe by refusing to accept the thousands of Jewish refugees who managed to leave the territory of the Third Reich. [10] Even in Switzerland there was widespread anti-Semitic prejudice. Not only were many Jewish refugees turned away, many of those admitted to the country were treated harshly in Work Camps. [11]

But it is not even enough to put the blame on all the nations who collaborated directly or indirectly with Germany in anti-Semitic activity. It is now generally realized that part of what made possible both the pogroms of Russia and the Shoah played out in Central Europe was an attitude of theological contempt towards Israel linked with “replacement theology.” Such theological thinking and the contempt it produces were components of the Christian Tradition as early as the second century ad. Jaroslav Pelikan observes:

Virtually every major Christian writer of the first five centuries either composed a treatise in opposition to Judaism or made this issue a dominant theme in a treatise devoted to some other subject. [12]

Besides the numerous writings which propounded replacement theology and fomented contempt for the Jewish people, the Church legislated against them. For example, in ad 325 Constantine wrote to bishops who had not been present at the Council of Nicea concerning the date of Easter. [13] The following consideration contained in Constantine’s letter, “We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews,” sums up one of the key ideas behind much subsequent legislation against them: All things Jewish were understood to be contemptible and totally incompatible with Christianity. Similarly the confessions which, during subsequent centuries, Jewish converts to Christianity were required to make at the moment of their baptism were laced with contempt for all things Jewish. [14] Even Luther, just three years before his death, wrote a strongly anti-Judaic tract [15] which included a plea that all Jews be expelled from German territories. It is now widely recognized that theological prejudice and anti-Judaic legislation paved the way for the Jewish massacres which have stained the recent history of so-called “Christian” Europe. [16]

Commenting on the old majority view in the light of the Shoah, Daniele Garrone has said, “We must have the courage to admit that we were wrong.” [17] Courage is needed to acknowledge that the Christian theological tradition contributed to this immense human tragedy. According to Henry F. Knight this recognition requires that we experience shame. [18] On a practical level it means reviewing those elements in Christian theology which contributed to the rationale of the Shoah. Knight writes, “After the Shoah responsible Christians can… [move on] only with significant revision to the form and content of their theologies.” [19]

Facing the shame of the Shoah also requires that the Church establish a new relationship with those who have experienced contempt and displacement. Indeed awareness of ecclesiastical and theological responsibility for the disastrous events culminating in the Shoah, led various sectors of Christendom to seek a new relationship with the Jewish people based on respect. First in this new field was the Council of Christians and Jews (CCJ), [20] a non-missionary and non-political organization committed to promoting understanding between Christians and Jews. Established in 1942 against the background of the Shoah, the CCJ pre-dated by six years the founding of the modern State of Israel and the inauguration of the World Council of Churches (WCC). The founders of the CCJ were resolved to lead in a fight against anti-Semitism and other prejudices that have warped European culture. [21] Already in 1947 a general change in attitude towards the Jewish people was evident at a CCJ Conference held at Seelisberg, Switzerland. However the “Ten-point appeal to the Churches” which emanated from this Conference made it clear that some profound theological rethinking was necessary in order that lasting change come about. [22]

The birth of dialogue on a grand scale can be dated from the Inaugural Assembly of the WCC in August 1948, just three months after the birth of the modern State of Israel. At that time the WCC produced a statement concerning the status of the Jewish people in which the old majority view is radically revised. This may be seen in the following statement:

To the Jews our God has bound us in a special solidarity linking our destinies together in His design. [23]

Moreover the tone of the document is one of great respect. For example, where the term “Jews” appears, it is almost invariably preceded by the definite article, while the expression “the Jewish people” is used nine times. Other significant expressions include “Jewish neighbors” and “Jewish State.”

While the new climate of dialogue is praiseworthy, we would insist that the process of rethinking the Church’s relationship with Israel be monitored by Scripture. If not, there is the risk that Apostolic teaching will be either distorted or neglected in the interests of peace. What is needed is not emotional reaction to the effects of the old majority view, but rather a return to all that Scripture has to say about the place of Israel in redemption history. For example, Romans chapters 9–11 should not be used selectively, as is so often done, omitting the missiological challenge contained in chapter 10.

The Effects of the New Majority View on Christian Theology

Christology

It is the presupposition of the entire New Testament that Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel. Thus christology, the study of the person and work of Jesus the Messiah, is a constitutive element of Christian theology. This being the case, it is imperative that the Church at large be aware of how christology is modified by the new majority view.

Christians need to remember that for almost two thousand years the Jewish people have associated “Christ” with anti-Judaic attitudes manifested by the Church. Thus it is to be expected that Jewish partners in dialogue will react negatively to the claim that the Christ preached by the Christian Church is their promised Messiah. As a remedy to this problem, Ekkehard Stegemann suggests that the Church should not call Jesus the Messiah of Israel. [24] Ironically, part of the problem is that the Church has too seldom taken this fact seriously enough! There are two other substantial problems with Stegemann’s suggestion. In the first place the New Testament states quite explicitly that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, linking His Jewishness with His role as Savior of the world (John 4:25–42; Rom. 9:1–5; cf. Gen. 12:1–3; Gal. 3:16). Secondly, whoever denies that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah is in fact denying the gospel which was announced in advance to Abraham (Gal. 3:8–16; Rom. 1:1–5, 16–17).

Hans Joachim Krau makes a different but equally radical proposal for modifying the Church’s concept of Christ. Instead of the traditional concept of a distinct person with supernatural attributes who came to fulfill the promises made to Israel, Krau proposes a kind of mystical christology. According to this concept the Messiah and the people of the Messiah are inseparable. [25]

I propose that, instead of avoiding christology, Christian partners in the Jewish-Christian dialogue would do well to distinguish between the relevant biblical data and the “theological embroidery” [26] dating from post-apostolic times. In particular they should disassociate themselves from the triumphalism of the Medieval Church. In its place they should underline the Jewishness of Jesus and make clear what both Jesus and the apostles taught concerning the fulfillment of the Old Testament Messianic hope. In particular it needs to be stressed that, according to the New Testament, the fulfillment of some aspects of the Messianic hope awaits the second advent of Christ (Matt. 13:36–43; Mark 14:60–62; Luke 19:11–27; Acts 3:19–21; 14:21–23; 17:30–31).

Soteriology and Missiology

According to Paul van Buren, a close observer of the Jewish-Christian dialogue, the dialogical process is favoring the theory that there are two peoples, Israel and the Church, to which correspond two covenants. We have already noted that, according to this view, ethnic Israel, God’s elect people, are redeemed through their faithfulness to the Torah while the Church is a separate community of which the great majority are from the Gentile nations and are accepted by God on the basis of the atoning work of Jesus. [27] Using this theory as his starting point, Clark M. Williamson claims that the Letter to the Hebrews is supersessionist where it claims “that the covenant between God and the Israel of God had been abolished.” [28] Williamson’s evaluation of this New Testament book confuses the Sinaitic covenant, superseded by the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah, with the Abrahamic covenant of promise on which Israel’s special identity is based.

Similar to “two-covenant theology” is the inclusivistic idea according to which the Jewish people are already in the one covenant. [29] Both of these theories, if accepted, require some revision of New Testament soteriology and of the Church’s missionary mandate.

Despite its importance, soteriology was not one of the theological issues discussed during the first forty years of the Jewish-Christian dialogue. [30] John T. Pawlikowski does not even include soteriology among “other areas where Christianity and Judaism each can profit from the dialogical exchange.” [31] John Lyden finds this lack of attention “curious, given the central role of this doctrine in both religions.” [32] However it is conceivable that the doctrine of salvation was avoided precisely because it touches the heart of the religious life of both Jews and Christians. Another reason might be that talking about theories of atonement would have meant facing up to some irreconcilable differences in the two faiths “due to the central role of Jesus in the Christian view of atonement.” [33] Yet reluctance to make soteriology a subject of dialogue is unfortunate because the question of mission, which has been a major concern of dialogue, [34] cannot be satisfactorily addressed without first addressing the issue of how salvation is accomplished and applied.

There are some other reasons, too, why soteriology should not be neglected. Firstly because salvation is a fundamental concern of mankind. [35] Secondly because the possibility of salvation is one of the central themes of biblical revelation. In fact the concept of atonement, with its emphasis on sacrifice and repentance, is a theme common to both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament writings. Moreover both the Jewish and Christian canons of Scripture link soteriology with monotheistic faith. For example, in the Tanakh God speaks thus:

Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear (Isa. 45:22-23; cf. 49:5-6).

The uniqueness of the God of Israel implied that all nations need to come to Him in order to experience salvation. The same logic is found in Paul’s first letter to Timothy, with the difference that in this case the way of salvation is further defined as being through the atoning work of Messiah, identified in the person of Jesus:

God our Savior…wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men (1 Tim. 2:3-6; cf. Rom. 3:29-30; Heb. 2:2-4).

The long period of comparative neglect of soteriology in the Jewish-Christian dialogue was brought to an end by a symposium held in Rome on 4–5 November, 1986 on the theme: “Salvation and Redemption in Judaism and Christianity.” [36] The missiological implications of the Jewish-Christian dialogue were considered three years later at a “Consultation on the Gospel and the Jewish People” organized by the World Evangelical Fellowship at Willowbank, Bermuda. [37] Subsequently both the soteriological and the missiological implications of the Jewish-Christian dialogue have become common themes of books [38] and Journal articles. [39]

As in other aspects of the Jewish-Christian dialogue, so also in discussion concerning soteriology, the Church has shown a willingness to listen to its interlocutor. However willingness to listen has not always been matched by a readiness to expound distinctive New Testament teaching on the topics being discussed. It is interesting that Terry Bookman, a Jewish partner in dialogue, deems this tendency inappropriate. According to Bookman, those engaged in dialogue must avoid “liberal attempts to either include those who do not profess their faith under their particular salvific formulation or to relativize all truth away.” Rather they must “talk intelligently about the central core” of what makes them what they are. [40] Soteriology is surely part of the core of what makes any religion distinctive. Thus, Christian partners in dialogue are duty bound to bring to bear the essential teaching of the New Testament writings on this subject.

The Rome colloquium found in the concept of theological pluralism a solution to the diversity of Jewish and Christian soteriologies. According to this position Judaism and Christianity present different but equally valid answers to the question: What must I do to be saved? This pluralistic solution is reflected in the way Rabbi Leon Klenicki summed up the point reached by the Jewish-Christian dialogue:

Overcoming the effect of memories must be followed by a religious consideration of the meaning of Christianity, the meaning of Jesus. The consideration of Christianity does not mean a conversion to Christianity. It is a recognition of a faith and its mission to others. The consideration of Christianity emphasizes our own authenticity, our own fervor and commitment. [41]

Klenicki clearly excludes the possibility of Jewish people converting to Yeshua. So do the one hundred and seventy-two Jewish scholars who signed the document “DABRU EMET: Statement on Christians and Christianity” dated September 10, 2000. The authors of this statement [42] conclude their description of the “irreconcilable difference between Jews and Christians” with the words: Neither Jew nor Christian should be pressed into affirming the teaching of the other community.

What should concern us as Christian theologians is that Christian partners in dialogue also tend to negate that Jews need to believe in Yeshua in order to be saved. For example, the Roman Catholic scholars who participated in the Rome symposium opted for a pluralistic solution to the question of the salvation of non-messianic Jews. While this solution might appear attractive at first glance, it involves a selective use of the New Testament and hence is not an option for those who take seriously the canonical status of the New Testament writings which make faith in Yeshua essential for salvation. [43]

This is not to say that all fruits of the Jewish-Christian dialogue concerning soteriology have been negative. New light has been thrown on common elements in soteriology such as the call to repentance and a doctrine of atonement. Moreover dialogue has helped to break down the stereotype of the Jew who believes that justification is by works. On the other hand the belief that God’s continuing covenant relationship with Israel exonerates this nation from the need to respond in faith to the gospel of Jesus Christ has put powerful constraints on discussion concerning soteriology. In particular Christian partners in dialogue have tended to avoid mentioning some of the essential ingredients of New Testament soteriology, in particular the crucial role of Jesus as Savior and the need to exercise faith in Him in order to be saved. [44]

Peter Beyerhaus observes that “biblical esssentials of Christian faith are more and more jeopardized” by the present trend towards radical pluralism. [45] The Jewish-Christian dialogue on soteriology exemplifies this general tendency. But it does more than this: Christianity’s unqualified acceptance of Jewish monotheistic faith actually fosters religious pluralism. In fact, the general opinion that Israel’s own covenant with God exempts her from needing to believe in Jesus in order to be saved implies that any number of peoples may have their own special relationship with God and hence be exempted from recognizing in Jesus the only means of reconciliation. [46]

Where monotheistic faith is the common ground of dialogue, the candidates for dialogue are no longer two but three: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. As a matter of fact Islam is increasingly being referred to as a potential partner in dialogue, together with Christianity and Judaism. [47] In a significant article published in Common Ground, the organ of the Council of Christians and Jews, Tony Bayfield, a Jewish Rabbi, calls for mutual respect among the three monotheistic religious communities. Bayfield quotes with approval the following view expressed by Maurice Wiles: [48]

If God makes himself available to be known by way of a universal offer of divine self-communication, any knowledge of God arising from that potentiality is necessarily a saving knowledge. [49]

This affirmation makes “saving knowledge” derive from general revelation. In other words a universal gnosticism takes the place of salvation based on the efficacy of Christ’s work. Such a soteriology is completely devoid of biblical foundations. Bayfield goes on to suggest that Christians should avoid presenting a unique way of salvation. Christian mission, in his view, should be limited to sharing with others a particular knowledge of the goodness of God as it has been made known in Jesus Christ. [50] He writes:

The route to the day on which “God will be One and God’s name One” (Zech. 14:9) lies not through mission as conquest or conversion but through mission as the full realisation in each Jew, Christian and Muslim of the best that each of the Abrahamic faiths can teach. [51]

That is the view of someone who denies that Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel. On the other hand true disciples of Yeshua, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, are called to obey the missionary mandate which He entrusted to His followers (Matt. 28:18–20). According to the Christian gospel there is no way back to God except through Jesus.

So far as evangelistic mission to the Jewish people in the here and now is concerned, suffice it to say that while the eschatological salvation of “all Israel” (Rom. 11:24–27) is not hastened by including the Jewish people in the Church’s mission, [52] this does not diminish the relevance of the principle to the Jew first practiced by Paul, in order to save some of them (Rom. 1:16; 11:13–14; cf. Acts chs. 13–19; 28:17–28). The words with which Peter addresses the Jewish people and their leaders in Acts 3:24–26 and 4:8–12 confirm that all Jews of every generation need to hear and respond to the Christian gospel, just as much as do Gentile peoples.

Hermeneutics

In this final example of the effects of the new majority view on Christian theology we will concentrate our attention on the tendency of those involved in the dialogical process to consider Sinai, rather than the death and resurrection of Jesus, the central and unifying point of salvation history. Whereas half a century ago James Parkes considered “Sinai and Calvary” to be different but complementary revelations, [53] more recently Pawlikowski has written:

Some Christian theologians working on the question of the Christian-Jewish relationship, such as Paul van Buren, would seem to make Sinai the central and unifying event. Christ becomes the entry-point for all non-Jews into this one ongoing covenant. [54]

A good example of a work which builds on this hermeneutical principle is Clark Williamson’s A Guest in the House of Israel. Williamson even redefines the terms unity, catholicity, sanctity, and apostolicity, widely recognized as the signs of the Church, in such a way as to make Sinai feature as “the central and unifying event.” [55] He writes: “The covenant between the God of Israel and the Israel of God at Sinai is the fundamental covenant of the scriptures.” [56]

In order to make this hermeneutical principle work, Williamson does not hesitate to deny the historicity of the Abrahamic covenant: He writes: “But this [Sinaitic]covenant is read back into history; so the J-document tells of the covenant between the Lord and Abram (Gen. 15:17–18).” [57] The theoretical basis of Williamson’s claim that the Sinaitic covenant is “the fundamental covenant of the scriptures” is thus seen to stand on a very shaky foundation; in fact, the historicity of the Abrahamic covenant is affirmed time after time throughout the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Moreover, according to Paul, the Abrahamic covenant, which constitutes the basis of God’s continuing relationship with Israel, preceded the Sinaitic covenant by 430 years (Gal. 3:17).

There are two further difficulties with the claim that Sinai is the central and unifying event of salvation history. The first difficulty is that both the early Christians and writers of the New Testament identify the unifying element of Old Testament history in the call of Abraham, to whom God announced the gospel in advance (Acts 7:2–46; 13:26; Gal. 3:6–29; cf. Gen. 12:1–3). Salvation history reflects the covenants of promise which God gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, while the consummation of these promises is expected to come about through their progeny, in particular Jesus, the Christ (Ex. 2:24; 6:4–8; Matt. 1:1; Gal. 3:16). The second difficulty is that the centerpiece of salvation history which the Church is called to defend is the truth of the incarnation (1 Tim. 3:15–16).

The Sinaitic covenant, as distinct from the Old Testament covenants of promise, was neither foundational nor ongoing. In fact it has been superseded by the New Covenant into which the whole people of Israel must eventually enter (Jer. 31:31–34; Rom. 11:26–27). This covenant has constitutive value for New Testament theology (Heb. 8:1–13; 9:15; 2 Cor. 3:1–6). In the final analysis, making “Sinai the central and unifying event” attaches more importance to a particular kind of Judaism than to the people of Israel and the God of Israel.

The inauguration of the New Covenant and the accomplishment of salvation are inseparable, as both were effected by the death and resurrection of “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Gen. 12:3; Matt. 1:1, 21; Gal. 3:8, 13–14, 29; Heb. 9:15). Thus Christian theology would commit a grave mistake if it did not continue to recognize in Jesus’ death and resurrection the central and unifying event of salvation history, for Israel as well as for Gentiles. Besides, Paul makes the point that it is through the atoning death of Jesus that Jew and Gentile coexist peacefully (Eph. 2:11–22) and it is through Him that God reconciles all things to Himself (Col. 1:19–20). The hermeneutical decision to subordinate the Christ event to the Sinai event ignores the primary importance of the Christ event which, according to the apostles, constitutes the only foundation for the hope of obtaining eternal salvation.

Conclusion

The enterprise of Christian theology must be based on sound hermeneutical principles, in particular the canonical principle. Inasmuch as the Jewish-Christian dialogue involves parties that recognize two partially different canons of Scripture, Christian partners in dialogue are obliged to bring to bear their understanding of the inter-relatedness of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament writings. Where the constraints of dialogue lead to the development of views involving the suppression of apostolic teaching, the best interests of both Israel and the Church are lost sight of. No real progress can be made at the expense of truth.

Notes

1. Ron Diprose is a commended missionary from the assemblies in New Zealand and is the Academic Dean at the Instituto Biblico Evangelico in Rome. His book, ISRAEL. in the development of christian thought, was reviewed by the editor in the last issue of The Emmaus Journal 9 (Winter 2000): 225-230.
2. Zanini based his convictions on biblical predictions, in particular thirty-two from the Hebrew Scriptures and eleven from the part of the Christian Bible commonly called “the New Testament” ( La Vedetta Cristiana, II/14, 15 [July 1871], 109).
3. Mortara’s Passover speech was later published in La Vedetta Cristiana, II/10, 15 (May 1871): 105-108, following an article written by Carlo Antonio Zanini (La Vedetta Cristiana, II/10, 15 [May 1871]: 73-75).
4. Letter written by Carlo Zanini to Prof. Giuseppe Jar (L’Italia evangelica XVI, 42 [1897]: 331-333).
5. Domenico Maselli, Tra Risveglio e Millennio, Torino Claudiana, 1974, 264.
6. Editor’s note: Dr. Diprose’s book, ISRAEL in the development of christian thought, is a historical and theological examination of this “replacement theology.” For a brief presentation of replacement theology see the review mentioned in note 1.
7. James Parkes was probably the first to espouse a two-covenant model in his Judaism and Christianity (London: Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 1948. For a survey of scholars using this model, see Michael G. Vanlaningham, “Christ, the Savior of Israel: The ‘Sonderweg’ and Bi-covenantal Controversies in relation to the Epistles of Paul” (un-published PhD dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, June 1997), 8–10.
8. Joann Spillman, “The Image of Covenant in Christian Understandings of Judaism,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies [hereafter JES], 35/1 (1998): 63-87.
9. “The Hebrew term Ha Shoah (‘desolation’) is used to describe the most notorious of the long series of atrocities perpetrated against the Jewish people. The term identifies the series of events described in German Nazi language as: die Endlösung der Judenfrage or ‘the Final Solution of the question of the Jews’ which Nazi Germany planned in order ‘to insure that no longer would there be a single Jew upon Planet Earth’.… ‘Holocaust’ is a less suitable term to describe these events, as it carries a positive connotation for Jews (see Lev. 1:3; 6:1–6).” Ronald E. Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought (Rome: Instituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, 2000), 1 n. 2.
10. Ezer Weizman, president of the State of Israel, recalled this fact with sadness in a message sent to the Centenary of the first Zionist Congress of Basel. Weizman writes: “If our State had been founded a decade before the II World War, we could have saved our brothers and our sisters in Europe destined to extinction because no country was willing to give them refuge (Herzl Centennial 1897–1997, Commemorating the 1st Zionist Congress, Basel, Programme, 6). On the anniversary of the heroic revolt of the Jewish community of Warsaw against Nazism, Elio Toaff, Chief Rabbi of Rome, was interviewed at Jerusalem on 23rd April, 1998, by a journalist of RAI 1. When asked whether he still finds some aspect of the Shoah enigmatic, Toaff cited the refusal of the great western democracies to give refuge to the Jews or to hinder the known massacres perpetrated by the Third Reich. Ideological anti-semitism is still a force to be reckoned with. It is calculated that there are 200,000 anti-semitic extremists in the USA alone who are in contact with similar armed groups throughout the whole of Europe (“Insight,” CNN, 26 April, 1998).
11. Simon Reeve has shown that those Jews who were not turned back at the Swiss border were treated, as one survivor of the Swiss Work Camps puts it, “as third-class citizens” (Simon Reeve, “Heartless Haven,” Time [Jan. 26, 1998]: 24-27).
12. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 5 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971–1989), 1:15.
13. Patrologia Graeca, J. P. Migne, 162 vols. (Paris: 1856–1866), 20:1074–1080.
14. James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, New York: Hermon Press, 1934, 394–400, gives a sampling of such confessions.
15. Martin Luther, The Jews and their Lies (Luther’s Works, vols 1–30, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan [Saint Louis, Concordia, 1958–1967]; vols 31–55, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1957–1986], vol. 47). This work was written in 1543, towards the end of Luther’s life.
16. Richard Harries, “Dialogo cristiani-ebrei” in Dizionario del Movemento Ecumenico (Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1994), 376.
17. Daniele Garrone, Prof. of OT at the Waldensian Faculty, Rome, made this statement at a Conference of Brethren, Methodists and Waldensians, on the theme “La Chiesa di fronte a Israele” [“The Church considers Israel”], held at Poggio Ubertini, Tuscany, on 24–26 September, 1993.
18. Henry F. Knight, “From Shame to Responsibility and Christian Identity: the Dynamics of Shame and Confession regarding the Shoah,” JES 35/1 (1998): 41-62:
19. Henry F. Knight, “From Shame to Responsibility and Christian Identity,” 52. I trace elsewhere the rise and effects of contempt for the Jewish People and of replacement theology in Christian Tradition and history (Ronald E. Diprose, ISRAEL in the development of christian thought, Rome: IBEI Edizioni, 2000).
20. The Council of Christians and Jews continues to operate in several countries, including England, Scotland, and New Zealand.
21. See Common Ground (1993/2): 4-5; cf. Sr Margaret Shepherd, “Christian-Jewish Relations,” Joppa Group Bulletin (April 1994): 5.
22. For the text of the “Ten Points of Seelisberg,” see L. Sestieri e G. Cereti (ed), Le chiese cristiane e l’ebraismo, 1947–1982, (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1983), 1–4.
23. “Ten Points of Seelisberg,” 5.
24. Ekkehard Stegemann, “Welchen Sinn hat es, von Jesus als Messias zu reden?” in Ekkehard Stegemann, ed., Messiasvorstellungen bei Juden und Christen (Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1993), 81–102.
25. Hans Joachim Krau, “Die Geist-Christologie im christlich-judischen Dialog,” in Ekkehard Stegemann, Messiasvorstellungen bei Juden und Christen, 103–110.
26. The expression “theological embroidery” was coined by Gregory Baum with reference to how the Church Fathers modified biblical teaching concerning the mystery of Israel (Gregory Baum O.S.A., Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic? [Glen rock, NJ: Paulist Press, 1960, Rev. ed., 1965], 17).
27. Paul M. van Buren, “On Reading Someone Else’s Mail: The Church and Israel’s Scriptures,” in Erhard Blum, Christian Macholz and Ekkehard W. Stegemann, eds., Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte (Heukirchen, Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag, 1990), 595.
28. Clark M. Williamson, A Guest in the House of Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 109–110.
29. Cf. Vanlaningham, “The ‘Sonderweg’ and Bi-covenantal Controversies,” 10–13. For a helpful survey of the various theories, see Gavin D’Costa, “One Covenant or many Covenants? Toward a Theology of Christian-Jewish relations,” JES 27/3 (1990): 441-452. D’Costa opts for an inclusivist solution: “one normative covenant, within which there are many further legitimate covenants” in which the work of Christ is decisive but conversion to Christ is not always essential.
30. See TCJP, 147–179. The issues listed are: covenant and election, the scriptures, Torah and law, Jesus, anti-semitism and the Shoah, the State of Israel, mission to the Jews, common responsibility.
31. John T. Pawlikowski, “Contemporary Jewish-Christian Theological Dialogue Agenda,” JES 11/4 (1974): 615.
32.  John C. Lyden, “Atonement in Judaism and Christianity: Toward a Rapprochement,” JES 29/1 (1992): 47. Rabbi Gordon Tucker (“Contemporary Jewish Thought on the Messianic Idea,” Face to Face 14 [1988]: 23) speaks for Jews when he says: “‘Salvation’ and ‘redemption’ are not among the most common entries in the Jewish lexicon even at those times when Jewish theology is being discussed. ‘Creation’ and ‘revelation,’ for example, are much more often the subjects of inquiry, perhaps in part because they are less unsettling topics.”
33. Lyden, “Atonement in Judaism and Christianity: Toward a Rapprochement,” JES 29/1 (1992): 47.
34. While the WCC began by affirming the appropriateness of Christian mission to the Jewish People, more recent statements emanating from WCC circles oppose it (TCJP, 8, 23, 77, 93, 97, 113–14). According to Sister Margaret Shepherd (“Christian-Jewish Relations,” Joppa Group Bulletin [April 1994]: 5), Christian mission is an obstacle of far greater importance to establishing amicable relations between Christians and Jews than are memories of the Holocaust and the issue of images in some Christian churches (cf. Charlotte Klein, “From conversion to dialogue—The Sisters of Sion and the Jews: A paradigm of Catholic-Jewish Relations?” JES 18 [1981]: 388-400).
35. This is made clear in Leslie Newbigin’s chapter “No Other Name,” in his book The Gospel in a Pluralist Society; Reprint; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991.
36. This symposium was organized by the Anti-Defamation League of B’Nai B’rith, in collaboration with the School of Philosophy of the Pontifical University, SIDIC, Angelicum and the Centro Pro Unione. The papers presented were published in a special issue of Face to Face: “Salvation and Redemption in Judaism and Christianity,” Face to Face 14 (1988); cf. Ronald E. Diprose, “Jewish-Christian Dialogue and Soteriology,” Trinity Journal NS 20 (1999): 23-37.
37. This consultation was held in April 1989; see “The Willowbank Declaration on the Christian Gospel and the Jewish People,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 13/4 (1989): 161-63.
38. See, for example: “La Salvezza viene dagli Ebrei,” ed. Annie Cagiati, Roma: Carucci editore, 1987; Clark M. Williamson, A Guest in the House of Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 77–106, 233–65; R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 156–77. Among more general works which have a bearing on our theme, see Hans Küng, Global Responsibility (London: SCM Press, 1991); Maurice Wiles, Christian Theology and Inter-religious Dialogue (London: SCM Press, 1992).
39. See, in particular, Paul M. van Buren, “Covenantal Pluralism?” Common Ground (hereafter CG) (1990/3), 21–27; David Blewett, “Must Jews become Christians?” CG, (1991/4) 19–21 and Tony Bayfield, “Mission—A Jewish Perspective,” CG (1993/2), 8–12; John C. Lyden, “Atonement in Judaism and Christianity: Toward a Rapprochement,” JES 29/1 (1992): 47-54.
40. Terry W. Bookman, “The Holy Conversation: Towards a Jewish Theology of Dialogue,” JES 32 (1995): 212-13.
41. Rabbi Leon Klenicki, “Facing History: Redemption and Salvation after Auschwitz,” JES 32 (1995): 46.
42. Michael A. Signer, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, David Novak, and Peter W. Ochs.
43. See John 3:36; 14:6; Acts 4:8–12; 1 Tim. 2:5–6. It is striking that while Romans ch. 11 appears repeatedly in the literature pertaining to the dialogical process, statements in ch. 10 (part of the same section of the letter) which make faith in Jesus essential for the salvation of Israelites are studiously avoided.
44. The following are among the many NT passages which affirm these distinctives: John 14:6; Acts 3:19–4:12; Rom. 3:19–31; 1 Cor. 3:11; 1 Tim. 2:5–6; 1 John 2:1–2.
45. Peter Beyerhaus, “The Authority of the Gospel and Interreligious Dialogue,” Trinity Journal 17 NS (1996): 139.
46. Carlo Molari says as much in an unpublished paper entitled “L’elezione d’Israele nell’autocomprensione cristiana” presented at the SIDIC Center, Rome (November 4, 1995). Molari writes, “The election of the Hebrew people and of the Christian church are but particular aspects of one and the same call which God addresses in different ways and forms to all nations, to gather them together into the unity of the people of God’s children” (p. 1).
47. “Such a Christology [which does not claim to represent the totality of revelation] needs to make room…for the ongoing validity of the Jewish covenant. A similar approach needs to be developed with respect to the other world religions, especially Islam;” cf. Ewert Cousins, “Judaism—Christianity—Islam: Facing Modernity Together,” JES 30/3–4 (1993): 417-425.
48. Wiles takes his cue from Karl Rahner (see Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith. Translated by William V. Dych [New York: Crossroad, 1982], especially ch. 4). Although Rahner speaks of the universality of the Divine offer of self-communication to the human creation, he also insists that saving knowledge of God is available only within the sphere of the Christian faith.
49. Maurice Wiles, Christian Theology and Inter-religious Dialogue, 68, cited by Tony Bayfield, in “Mission—A Jewish Perspective,” CG (1993/2): 10.
50. Tony Bayfield, in “Mission—A Jewish Perspective,” 10.
51. Tony Bayfield, in “Mission—A Jewish Perspective,” 11.
52. Thus Marquardt, in Hans L. Reichrath, “Die Geschichtlichkeit der Kirche war und ist eine Israelgeschichtlichkeit,” Judaica 52/1 (1996):58.
53. Parkes, Judaism and Christianity, 30.
54. Pawlikowski, op. cit., 150–151. Pawlikowski suggests the need: “to explore whether the realities expressed through the Sinai myth and the Christ myth may be present under different symbols in other world religions” (ibid.).
55. Williamson, Guest, 260–64.
56. Williamson, Guest, 126.
57. Williamson, Guest, 126.