winter 1984-1985 quarterly review - theological resources for ministry

8/9/2019 Winter 1984-1985 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources for Ministry

1/110

V O L . 4, NO. 4 W I N T E R 1984A Scholarly Journal for Reflection on Ministry

Q U A R T E R L Y R E V I E W

FOCUS ON J E W I S H - C H R I S T I A N RELATIONSA. Roy Eckardt, Consulting Editor

The Relationship of Judaism and ChristianityIrving Greenberg

Jews and ChristiansJohn T. Pawlikowski

Post-Holocaust New Testament ScholarshipClark M. Williamson

The Jewish "No" to Jesus and the Christian" Y e s " to Jews

J . (Coos) SchoneveldHeschel's Significance for Jewish-Christian

Eva FleischnerHomiletical Resources from the Hebrew Bib l e for Lent

Michael Chernick


2/110

Q U A R T E R L Y R E V I E WA Scholarly J o u r n a l for Reflection on MinistryA publica tion of The United Methodist Publishing Hous eR o b e r t K. F e a s t e r , President and Publisherand the United Methodist B o a r d of Higher Education and Ministry

F . Thomas T r o t te r , General SecretaryEditoria l Director, Ronald P. PattersonEd i t o r , Charles E. ColeE d i t o r i a l B o a r dF. Thomas T r o t t e r , ChairFr e d B. CraddockC a n d l e r School of TheologyKeith R. Crim

Westminster PressBrita GillM o d e r a t o r , Northern CaliforniaConference, United Church of ChristL e a n d e r KeckY a l e Divinity School

Lloyd R. BaileyDuke Divinity School

Cornish RogersSchool of Theology at Claremont

Roy I. SanoBishop, Denver A r e a ,United Methodist ChurchJ o h n L. TopolewskiCh r i s t United Methodist ChurchMountaintop, Pennsylvania

Q u a r t e r l y Review (ISSN 0 2 7 0 - 9 2 8 7 ) provides continuing education resources forprofessional ministers in The United Methodist Church and other churches. A scholarlyj o u r n a l for reflection on ministry, Q uarterly Revi ew seeks to encourage discussion anddebate on matters critical to the practice of ministry.

Falling within the purview of the journal are articles and reviews on biblical, theological,ethical, and ecclesiastical questions; homilet ics, pas toral counseling, church education,s a c r e d music, worshi p, evangelism, mission, and church managemen t; ecumenical issues;c u l tur a l and social issues whe re their salience to the practi ce of ministry can bedemonstrated; and the general ministry of C h r i s t i a n s , as p a r t of the church's understandingo f its nature and mission.

Articles for consideration are welcome from lay and professional ministers, UnitedMethodists, and others, and should be mailed to the Ed i t o r , Quarterly Review , Box 871,Nashville, Tennessee 3 7 2 0 2 . Manuscri pts should be in English and typed double-spaced,an d the original and two duplicates should be submitted. No sermons, poems, or devotionalm a t e r i a l a r e a c c e p t e d . Queries a r e welcome. A style sheet is available on request. Payment isby fee, depending on edited length.

Q u a r t e r l y Revi ew is published four times a year , in M a r c h , J u n e , September, andDecember, by the United Methodist B o a r d of Higher Education and Ministry and TheUnited Methodist Publishing House. Editorial Offices are at 1 0 0 1 1 9 t h Avenue, South, Box8 7 1 , Nashville, TN 3 7 2 0 2 . Circulation and business offices are at 201 Eighth Avenue South,B o x 8 0 1 , Nashville, TN 3 7 2 0 2 . Second-class postage paid at Nashville, Tennessee. QuarterlyRevi ew is available at a basic subscription price of $ 1 5 for one y e a r , $26 for two y e a r s , and $33for thre e year s. Subscriptions ma y be obtained by send ing a mon ey order or check to theBusiness Manager, Quarterly Revie w, Box 801 , Nashville, TN 3 7 2 0 2 .

P o s t m a s t e r : Addr ess change s should be sent to The United Methodist Publishing H ouse,B o x 801 , Nashville, TN 3 7 2 0 2 .Subscribers wishing to notify publisher of their change of address should write to theBusiness Manager, Quarterl y Review , Box 801 , Nashville, TN 3 7 2 0 2 .An index is printed in the winter issue of each year (number 5 for 1981 only; number 4t he re a f t e r ) .

Quarterly Review: A Scholarly Journal for Reflection on MinistryWinter, 1984

Copyright 1984 by The United Methodist Publishing Housean d the United Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry


3/110

V O L . 4, NO. 4 WINTER 1984

CONTENTSFocus on Jewish-Christian Relations

A. Roy Eckar dt, consulting editorE d i t o r i a l : When an Editor N e e d s an Edit or 3The Relationship of Juda ism and Christianity; Tow ar d a Ne w

Organic ModelIrving Greenberg 4

Jews and Chris t ians: The Contemporary DialogueJohn T. Pawlikowski 23

The Ne w Test ame nt Recon sidere d: Recent Post- Holoc aust Scholarshi pClark M. Williamson 37

The Jewish " No" to Jes us and the Christi an "Ye s" to Jew s/. (Coos) Schotteveld 52

Hesc hel 's Significance for Jewi sh-C hris tian Rel ationsEv a Fleischner 64

Homiletical Resources from the Hebrew Bible for LentMichael Chemick 82

Ind ex to Vol ume Fou r 103

Q U A R T E R L Y REVIEW


4/110


5/110

E D I T O R I A LWhen an Editor Needs an Editor

Wh en you look for a consu lti ng editor, you norma lly seek an exper tin the field. We had no trouble identifying such an authoritative figurewhe n we decided to publi sh an issue wit h a focus on Jewi sh-Chris tianrelations. A. Roy Eckardt has publishe d an enorm ous nu mbe r ofbooks, articles, and reviews on this theme over a period of severaldecades, and we were fortunate that he agreed to serve as ourconsulting editor for this winter. Roy recently retired from theDepart ment of Religion Studies at Lehigh University, but heconti nues to research and write. A mo ng his man y works are Elder andYounger Brothers: The Encounter of Jews and Christians (Schocken, 1 9 7 3 ) ,Your People, My People: The Meeting of Jews and Christians (Quadrangle/New Y o r k Times, 1 9 7 4 ) , and as co-author with his wife, A l i c e ,Encounter with Israel: A Challenge to Conscience (Association Press/Fol-lett, 1970) an d Long Night's Journey into Day: Life and Faith after theHolocaust (Wayne State, 1 9 8 2 ) . Of cour se Roy has done mor e thanwrite and teach, and his participation in seminars, symposia, andvarious interfaith discussions on this continent and abroad wouldtake another page or two to describe.

For those who would like to continue to reflect on Jewish-Christianstudies after reading parts of this is sue of QR, an excellent resource isan annota ted bib liography Roy prepared for the Journal of th e AmericanAcademy of Religion in March, 1 9 8 1 , "R ece nt Literature on Christian-Jewish Relations."

As a consu lti ng editor, Roy has helped us locate writers who areknowledgeable and can write perceptively on sensitive and criticalissues. He has offered his ow n criticisms and suggesti ons on themanuscripts and has used a variety of creative devices to see thatwriters produced when they were supposed to and in the way weasked the m to. We hop e readers will appreciate the "u nse en ha nd"be hi nd thi s special editi on, and if the y do they sho uld direct theirgratitude to Ro y, wh os e counse l and wo rk we greatly admi re.

3


6/110

T H E RELATIONSHIP OFJUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY:TOWARD A NEW ORGANIC MODEL

I R V I N G G R E E N B E R G

"This paper is an attempt to ask Jew9 and Jewish thinkersto focus not only on Christian failure and the Christiantradition of teaching of contempt . . . [but] whether it ispossible for Judaism to have a more affirmative model ofChris t iani ty/ '

This paper does not focus on the Holocaust but in part it is aresponse to the Holocaust. In the light of the Holocaust, thewil lingness to confront, to criti cize, and to correct is the ultimate testo f the validity and the vitality of faith. One might say that that religionwhich is most able to correct i t s e l f is the one that will prove i t se l f to bemost true. Those who claim they have the whole truth and nothingbut the truth and there is nothing to correct thereby prove how falseand h ow ineffective their religious viewpoint is. The most powerfulproof of the vitality and the ongoing relevance of Christ ianity is thewor k of peop le like Alice and R oy Eckardt wh os e fundamentalcritique of Christ ianity is surely one of the mo st sustai ned anddevastating moral analyses in its history. But their work, and that ofothe rs like them (Paul van Buren , Rosema ry Ruet her, Eva Flei schner)is both healing and affirming of Christianity.

In that spirit , this paper is an att empt to ask Jews and Jewishthinkers to focus not only on Christian failure and the Christiantradition of teach ing of con tempt. "T he Holocaust cannot be used fortriumphal ism. Its moral chall enge mus t also be applied toJews." (Seemy "Cloud of Smoke, Pillar of Fire: Judaism, Christianity, andModernity after the Holocaust," in Eva Fleischner, Auschwitz:Beginning of a New Era? [New York: K T A V , 1 9 7 7 ] , pp. 2 0 - 2 2 . ) Thispaper asks whether it is possible for Judaism to have a moreIrving Greenberg is an Ort hod ox rabbi and is president of the National Jewish ResourceCenter, an organization devoted to leadership education, policy guidance, andintra-Jewish, ecumenica l spiritual renew al. Rabbi Greenberg has written extensively onJudaism and Christianity after the Holocaust.

4


7/110

R E L A T I O N S H I P OF JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

5

affirmative model of Christ ianity, on e that apprecia tes Christi anspiritual l i fe in all its mani fest pow er. If for no ot her rea son , let this bedone beca use if we take the other' s spiritual l i fe less seriously, we runthe great risk of taking the biological l i fe less seriously, too. It was theChri stian theological negat ivism and ste reotyping of Judais m thatcreated that moral trap into which all too many Christians f e l l duringthe Holocaust. At the least, it encouraged relative indifference to thefate of the other. In the light of the Holocaust, Jews have to askthemselves: Is there anything in Jewish tradition or the Jewish modelof other religions like Christ ianity that could lead to som e indifferenceto the fate of others?

After the Holocaust, a model of the relati onship of Judais m andChristianity ideally should enable one to affirm the fullness of thefaith-claims of the other, not just offer toler ance. It is import ant toavoid a kind of affirmation of the ot her that is patronizing. TakeMarti n Buber, our mast er and teacher. In Bube r's boo k Two Types ofFaith, and other writings on Christianity, one is fascinated by theincredibl e ope nne ss (which profoundly affected me). Martin Bube rspeaks of "my brother Jesus ." (The daring and t he power o f thatstatemen t! I could neve r use that term.) Yet in Buber' s approach,Jesus' true religion is the subterranean religion which runs throughJudaism also. The Christianity that Buber loves turns out to besuspiciously like the Judaism that Buber loves. That religion,theologically misled by Paul, turns into the Christianity we all know.No w Bub er in his ow n way wa s a remarkab le pioneerbut is thatultimat ely the message?t hat Christiani ty is a wonderful religionwh en it fits (our) Jewish ideas? Should n ot Jewi sh theol ogy seek to beope n to Christ ian self-unders tanding, including the remarkable,unbelievable claim of Resurrection, Incarnation, etc.? Can one, as aJ e w , take these claims seriously without giving up one's Jewishness?Up to now, t he agreed response is that if you take such claimsseri ousl y, there is no th ing further to be as a J e w . Thi s is wh y Jew s whoare serious Jews have rejected these claims in the past.

This paper seeks to articulate a model that would allow for theChri stian possibility wit hout yieldi ng the firm convict ion that Judaismis a covenant faith, true and valid in history. I believe that Juda ism hasneve r been superseded, and tha t its wor k is yet unfini shed. We need amodel that would allow both sides to respect the full nature of theother in all its faith-claims. (One must recognize that there is a wholeOrange of Chri stian self-understand ing and a whole rang e of Jewishself-under standing, from the most secular to the most fundamental-


8/110

Q U A R T E R L Y R E V I E W , W I N T E R 1984

6

ist. Ideally , a model should allow room for that range of model, andstill not exclude the fullness of the faith-claims of the other.) Last, butnot least, the model is will ing to affirm the profound innerrelationship between the two, and to recognize and admit how muchcloser they are to each other than eit her has been able to say, withoutdenying the other. Up to now, the affirmation that the two religionsare profoundly close was mad e by Chri sti ans who claimed thatChri stian ity grows organically out of Judai sm in the course ofsupersed ing Judai sm. To the extent that there have been Christianswho have affirmed Judai sm as valid, they have had (to a certainextent) to overemphasize Jewish differentiation in order to makespace for Jewish existence . To the extent that there were Je ws willingto see Christianity as a valid religion, they also tended to stress thedifferences, in order to protect Judaism. This model will seek toreduce the gaps wit hout denyi ng the authenticity of the other.

T H E S C R I P T U R A L M O D E L

Juda ism is a religion of redempt ion. The fundamental teaching ofJudaism is that because this world is rooted in an infinite source of l i feand goodness, which we call God, l i fe wit hin it is growi ng, increasing,perfecting. Li fe is developing to become more and more like God. Theultimate achievement so far is the human being. The human being isin the image of God, so much like God that one can literally use theimagery of a human-l ike God . In the case of the human, l i fe is ofinfinite value, equal and unique. Judaism claims that this process willcontinue until life's fullest possibili ties will be realized, until l i fe finallyovercomes death.

If that is not incredi ble enough, Judai sm makes a further claim. Th ewor ld that we live in, in the realm of the hist ory of humans , is whe rethis perfection will come. There is another realmrabbinic Judaismaffirms a world to come. This perfection of l i fe will be achieved in therealm which the five senses can see and measure, in the realm ofhistory. Si cknes s will be overcome; poverty and oppressi on will beoverco me; deat h will be overc ome. Th e political, economic, and socialstruct ures will be rest ructured, to support and nurture the perfectionof l i f e .

Finally, Jud ai sm sai d that if God is good and God is a source ofinfinite l i fe and infinite goodness, no one should have died in the firstplace. To perfect the worl d, it woul d not be enough to overcome deathprospectively. Judai sm goes on to say there will be resurrection . Al l


9/110

R E L A T I O N S H I P O P J U D A I S M A N D CHRISTIANITY

7

those who have died will come to l i f e . Th en all will kn ow thatever yth ing abou t Go d is true. Faith is not a fairy tale. If all this does nothappen, then the whole Torah is an illusion, a fable. This affirmationis part of the cou rag e and dari ng of Juda ism. It set the test of its truthnot in another world which cannot be measured, not in a world fromwh ich there are no travelers wh o have retur ned w ith firsthandrepor ts. Juda ism insist ed that red emp tio n is going to ha ppe n in thisworl d, w her e you can see it, mea sur e itand if it does not happ en,then the religion is revealed to be an illusion.

This vision of Jud ais m was set in moti on by a great event in Jew ishhistor ythe E xodu s. Exodus points to a future g oal in that it promise sthat not only Jews will reach the Promi sed Lan d of freedom andequa lity but all peo ple will. By its ow n definition , th en, Judai sm is areligion that is open to further events in history. Or to put it anotherway, Judaism has built into its own self-understanding that it mustgen erat e future m ess iani c mo me nt s. An d the central revealedmetaphor that guides this process from the beginning is covenant.The covenant is between God and Israel. God could do it alone. Butthe achievement of total perfection of the world will take place as theresult of the efforts of both part ners. A lth oug h the promi sedperfection seem s bey ond hu man capacity, the two partners betw eenth em ca n achie ve it. In theory, the divine resp ects hum an free will.Therefore this final perfection cannot simply be given by God orbro ugh t on by hu ma n effort.

The covenant makes possible the process of getting to the finalrede mpti on. Th e cove nan t is Israel's com mit men t not to stop short ofperfection. It is the pledge to testify, to teach the world, to witness toothe r hu ma n b ein gs. A nd the coven ant also implies that we canans we r the question: Wh at do I do now ? Th e ans wer is: step by step.Use an a rmy to reduce t he possibilit y of war. If on e has to fight, kill asfew people as possible. A commitment to achieve perfection step bystep mea ns that the mode l of perfection i t s e l f unfolds in history.

To summ ariz e: Jud ais m is a religion of rede mpti on and perfection,root ed in history, operati ng throug h a coven ant, illuminated byhistory, open to further events of revelation which will clarify itsmessage, with an implied pedagogical model of the relationship ofGod and h um an s in wh ich God will help the hu ma ns unfo ld, but willnot force them to be free.

J U D A I S M A N D C H R I S T I A N I T Y

In light of all thi s, to be a faithful Je w is to look forw ard to furthereven ts of revelation and re demp tion bey ond the Exod useve nts that


10/110


As long as J e w r y is generating messiahs, it is faithful to itsown calling.

calling. If Juda ism does not gene rat e messi ahsat least until the finalmess iah does come and st raighten out the who le worldthen there issomething wrong.

(In writing abo ut th e Holocaust , I once wrote that I was as ham ed ofthe fact that, in this generation, there was not at least a false messiah.A false mess iah would sho w that the Jews were truly living up to theirvocation, which is to hope and expect the messiah, particularly insuch tragic times. If on e hope s for the messia h and a false on e show supwell , it is regre ttable but at least on e has tried. Not to gene rateeven a false messiah is a sign that people are complacent; they haveeither lost hope or do not care.)

The later event which illuminates the earlier event and guides us toits fulfillment is the mess ian ic moment. Thi s is wh y I believe the ea rlyChristians were faithful Jews whe n they recognized Jesus. Like good,faithful Jews, they were looking for the messiah, particularly in adifferent ce ntu ry. Lo and beho ld! Th ey recogn ized his arrival. Tha t is avery faithful r espon se o f a Jewt o recogn ize that the mess iah hasarrived, and to respond.

The early Christians were equally faithful, and equally acting out ofloyalty to their Jewish understanding, when they responded to a

will illuminate the covenan tal wa y and gui de it forward. Wh en shouldone most look forward to tho se kinds of even ts? In time of greatdespair and setbacks. That is the time to anticipate the messiah. Tothose committed to the triumph of l i f e , goodness, and justice, themoment of great injustice is the time to look forward even more tomessia nic redem ptio n. Wh en evil reigns sup reme , the true balancean d direction of history has be en disturbed. Th e only even t that cancorrect such imbalance is a major redemptive move on the other side.

The logic of covenan tal redemp tion explains wh y Judais m, in fact,generated Christianity. One might argue that generating Christianityis a necessa ry sign of Jud ai sm' s vitality. It is a sign that the dynamics ofthe covenant are operating. If Juda ism did not generate messianicexpectations, did not generate a messiah, it would be a sign that it wasdead. As long as Jewry is generating messiahs, it is faithful to its own

8


11/110

R E L A T I O N S H I P O F J U D A I S M A N D CHRISTIANITY

9

further event, on e the y had not anticipa ted at all; nam ely , themessiah's death.

Caution: Whenever one responds to a new event, believing thiseven t illuminates the original even t, ther e is a risk. On the one hand,the response shows faithfulness. On the other hand, there are greatdangers. On e risk is to give your trust and faith to a false messi aht henew arrival may turn out not to be the true messia h. The re is a furtherriskthe new developments may lead to a transformation of theoriginal ideas. The n, out o f trying to be faithful t o the new exper ience,one may find oneself in some way leaving behind or betraying theoriginal commitments. Which then are true: the old ideas or the newones? Or both? Th e answer , o f cour se, is that the re is no guarantee inadvance . Wait unt il it is all clarified and it will be too late. On e mus tresp ond right now . Fait h respo nse is a wa ger of one' s own l i f e , out offaithfulness.

Consider the Jewish Sitz im Leben of those faithful Jew ish Chri stiansresponding to the messiah. Here was this man whom theyexperienced as the messiah. He was shockingly killed. It was aterrible, degrading death. Equally shocking was the b e l i e f the messiahwa s suppo sed to bring the final perfection: pea ce, dignity, prosperit y,ind epen denc e. Instead of doing all this, this messiah died miserably,according to some reports, even in despair and self-denial.

Now, as faithful Jews (they still we re not Christ ians) ho w oughtthey to have responded to his death? Should they have said, "He wasa false messiah"? Should they have betrayed the original insight thatthis person w as the messiah? Or should they have thought , "Ma ybethis death is another event that illuminates the meaning of theprevi ous e vent "? Mayb e the Crucifixion is not a refutation o f Jesus'bei ng the me ssi ah, but rather a clarification of the nature ofredemption. Up to now, they thought that the messiah wouldstraighten out the political and econom ic worl d, bec aus e that was t hemen ta l image of what it meant to perfect the world. But if I as an earlyChristian knew this was the messiah but he did not bring worldlyliberation, I had an alternative to yielding faith. The alternative was tosay that the death is teaching a lesson. The lesson is that trueredempt ion is not in this world . Th e kin gdo m of God is withi n you.Faith leads to a world of spiritua l perfec tion : eve n though I am a slave ,I am free in Christ.

The Christians responded faithfully but later history suggeststheymade a hermeneutical error. To put it another way: In retrospect,it was a mistake to say that the exp lanat ion of the Crucifixion is that


12/110

Q U A R T E R L Y R E V I E W , W I N T E R 1 9 8 4

In short, the classic Christian interpretation that Christianity has superseded Judaism is an understandablehermeneutic, rooted in Jewish models of interpretation andcapable of being derived out of faithfulness to past Jewishmodes of thinking.

classic Chri stian interpreta tion that Chris tianity has supe rsed edJudaism is an understand able herme neutic , rooted in Jewis h modelso f interpreta tion and capabl e of bei ng derived ou t of faithfulnessto past Jew ish mo de s of thinkin g. Th e paradox is that althou ghJewish thinking is involved in arriving at this conclusion, the

1 0

the redemptio n is bey ond history. That judg men t generated afunda mental cont inui ng proble m of Christ ianity. In its faithfulness toits vision of Christ comepitted against the shocking reality of aworld of suffering and evil and povertyC hristian ity is continuallytemp ted to answ er: "Th is vale of tears is not the real worl d. T he w orldo f suffering and oppression does not matter. It is trivial or secondary.The wor ld tha t really cou nts is the spiritual worl d. Tha t is wh ere y oucan be born again and free right no w ." Bu t this finding betrays thefunda mental claim of Jud ais m that life i t s e l f and not only after life willbe perfected.

As they strugg led with t he mean in g of their faithfulness to Jesus,Christians went on to make a second error, when the destruction ofthe temple came a generation later. But this second error was againthe out gro wth of a re sp on se of faith to a great historical even tanothe r paradigm atic, authe ntic act of a religious Je w. In the light of thedestruc tion, Jew ish and Gent ile Chri stians conclud ed that they hadmis und ers too d. T he y thou ght that Jes us was the fulfillment of theJewish promises within the bounds of Jew ish life and hope going onas before . But if the Je ws do not acc ept Jesus, even after their temple isdestr oyed, is this not a proo f that Go d has in fact rejecte d the m? A ndusing the same hermeneutical model, would not Gentile Christiansconclu de that the accept ance of Christ ianity in the world proves thatJesus came not to continue the old and the original covenant, butrather to bring a new c oven ant to hum ani ty? A nd since the Jews failedto understand, have they not forfeited the promise? In short, the


13/110


11

conclusion i t s e l f was devastating for future Jewish-Christian relations. In effect, the response to the destruction created a model ofrelationship in which the mere existence of the Jews is a problem forChristianity. The obvious temptationcontinually given in towasto solve the problem by getting rid of the Jews.

The re were and are thre e classic Chri stian ways of remo ving theJewish problem. One was to insist that the Jews were not really alive:Judaism was a fossilized religion; Jews are children of the devil; theyare dead, but the devil is pumping them up, etc. This is the way ofcarica ture and dismissal ; of ster eotypes of legali sm and sp&t Judentum.In taking this tack, Christians did not deal with the possibility thatGod was keeping the Jews alive because God wanted their testimonyto go on until the world i t s e l f was redeemed. The second way was toconvert Jews to become Christians so there would be no problem.However, by and large, the Jews declined to yield their witness.

The third way , if the oth er two did not work, wa s to kill theJew sthe n there was no contradiction betwe en Jewis h existence andChristianity anymore.

The supersessi onist interpretation continually tempt ed Christianityinto being neither the gospel of love it wanted to be, nor theoutg rowth of Jud ais m seeking to reach out and realize Israel 'smessianic dream that it could have been. Christianity was continuallyled to beco me an otherworldly, triumpha list r eligion that put its ownmother down; it spit into the well from which it drank.

The rabbis and the Jews had a similar problem from the other side.After all, they sensed the profound continuity from Jud ais m intoChristianity. The hermene utical langu age of Heb rew Scripturesmakes many of the sam e claims. Wha t ma de it worse, or moredifficult, was that Chri stiani ty tri umphed . Chris tianity bec ame aworld religion, far greater in its numbers than Judaism. How can oneaccount for that, if one believes that Judaism is true and the messiahhas no t come yet? In Jew ish terms , could there be mor e clear proof ofChr istian claims than the fact that it tri umphed in histo ry?

The Jews, too, hand led the probl em by a serie s of res pon ses . First,the Chr isti an victory was not really a victory: "L oo k ho w evil theworld is even after Jesus' car eer ." This is the bedrock of Jewis hrespons e to Chri stian ity but it did not deal with th e possibility that thenature of redemp tion was being redefinedor widenedo r partiallyrealized.

Second, Christianity is neither a gospel of love nor Go d's mess age,because look how cruel Christians are to Jews. Far from bringing


14/110


1 2

redem ption , Christian ity has brought a who le new su m of evil andcruelty into the wor ld. Tha t is the best pro of Chr istia nity is not a truereligion.

Third, Chri stians claim to supers ede Jew ry. Christians thems elvessay that if Chr isti anity is true faith, th en Ju dai sm does not exist or h asno right to exist. But Je wr y know s that it is alive and vital. Obviously,Christianity must be false. If your truth me an s that I am not valid, butI know my own validity, then you must be false.

The fourth Jew ish res pon se was that Christianity triump hed amo ngthe Ge nti les . No Jew wou ld fall for that fairy tale of a virgin mother . Ifyou were pregnant from someone else, what would you tell yourhus ban d? This is fundamentally ho w medieval Jew s handledChristiani ty. Jo se ph was a fool en ou gh to beli eve. With one Jew, younever can tell. But the Je ws as a wh ol e woul d not buy it. Tha t a wh olewor ld wo uld buy it proves that Gen til e heads can be filled withanythin g. This unde rsta ndin g bred con temp t for Gentil es rather thanappreciation for their joining in the work of achieving totalredemp tion, i.e., both worldl y and spiritual. Of course, the contem ptwas earned and reinforced by Christian mistreatment of Jews.

Just as Christians were tempted to step out of history because themessiah had come already and the ongoing suffering was a problem,so the answ er was that history did not matter. Jew s were also tem ptedto step out of hist ory becau se in that arena, Christianity ha d won . Towhi ch the Jew ish ans we r wa s that wha t happ ene d in history was no wunimp ortan t. Christ ianity had triumphedtempora rily. Wh en thefinal redemption comes, all these huge statues and towers will comecrashin g dow n, an d humani ty will kno w the truth. Jew ry, this small,pitiful peo ple wh ich had no political clout ha s really been the hear t ofthe worl d. All the rest has be en just a big , flashy show , upfronttemporarily. There fore, Juda ism also step ped out of history towait for its final redemption.

The one thing the rabbis would give Christianity, then, is that Jesuswas a messiaha false messiah. This negative view conceded verylittle. Jesu s wa s not t he only false mess iah in Jew ish history; he w asneither the first nor the last. In the seventeenth century, ShabbetaiTsvi, one of the great false messi ahs of Jewi sh histo ry, swe pt theJewish worl d. Th e Je ws are still looking for a mess iah . So , if a few Je wsfollowed Jesus, it proved nothing. The rabbis concluded thatChristianity was an alien growth , de velope d by thos e wh o followed afalse messiah.

The rabbis perhaps erred here. Understandably, they did not do


15/110


Out of defensiveness, the rabbis confused a "failed"messiah (which is what Jesus was) and a false messiah.

Out o f defen siveness , the rabbis confused a "fail ed" mess iah (whichis wh at Je sus was) and a false mes sia h. A false mes sia h is on e wh o hasthe wro ng values: one wh o would teach that death will triumph , thatpeople should oppress each other, that God hates us, or that sin andcrime is the proper way. In the eighteenth century, a putative Jewishmessiah named Jacob Frank ende d u p teachi ng his people that out ofsin comes redemptio n; therefore, on e mus t sin. Such is a falsemessiah.

A failed mes si ah is one wh o has the right values, uphold s thecovenant, but who did not attain the final goal. In the first century,1 3 0 - 1 3 5 , Bar Koc hba, the great Jew ish freedom fighter who led arevolt against Ro me that temporarily drove Ro me out of Jerusa lem,sou ght to free the land. He wa s hailed by Rabb i Akiva and ma ny greatrabbis as the mess iah . His rebell ion wa s crus hed; it did not bring tha tfinal step of red emp tio n. It turned out that he wa s a failed messiah.But Akiva did not repudiate him. Since when is worldly success acriterion of ultimate validity in Judaism?

Calling Jesus a failed messiah is in i t s e l f a term of irony. In theJewish tradition, failure is a most ambig uou s term. Abraham was a"failure." He dreamt of converting the whol e world to Jud aism. Heended up barely having one child carrying on the tradition. Even thatchild he almost lost.

Moses was a "fa ilu re. " He drea mt of taking the slaves, makingthem into a free people and bringing them to the Promised Land.They were hopeless slaves; they died slaves in the desert; neither theynor Moses ever reached the Promised Land.

Jeremiah was a "failure." He tried to convince the Jewish peoplethat the temple woul d be destroye d unle ss they stop ped th eir morallyand politically wrong policies; he tried to convi nce them to be ethicallyresponsible, to free their slaves, not to fight Babylo nia. No onelistened.

All these "failures" are at the heart of divine and Jewish1 3

greater justice to Jesu s bec aus e the y wer e surroun ded by an en emy( i . e . , Christians) one hundred times larger than Jewry, aggressivelyproselytizing and persecuting the Jews in the name of Jesus' claims.


16/110


1 4

achievements. This concept of a "fail ed" but true mes sia h is found in arabbinic tradition of the Mes siah ben Josep h. The Messiah ben David(son of David) is the o ne wh o brings th e final restoration. In theMessiah ben Joseph idea, you have a messiah who comes and fails,ind eed is put to dea th, but this mess iah paves the way for the finalredemption.In fact, Chr isti ans also sen sed that Jes us did not exhaust theachi eveme nts of the final messi ah. Despi te Christian claims that Jesuswas a total success (the proof being that redemption has beenachieved; it is of the otherworldly kind) even Christians spoke of aSecond Coming. The concept of Second Coming, in a way, is a tacitadmiss ion that if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

On e might argue then that both sides claimedand deniedmorethan was necessary in order to protect their own truth against thecounterclaims of the o the r. Bot h sides wer e too close to recognize eachother, and too close and too conflicted to co me to grips with eachother' s existe nce as valid in its ow n right. Bot h faiths stepped out ofhistory to protect their ow n positionChristi ans denyi ng anythingrevelatory further can happen in history because Christ is the finalrevelation; Je ws deny ing any further revelation in history becaus eJudaism is a covenant that cannot be revoked.

There wa s even mo re theological fallout to the se moves. Religiontende d to aba ndo n th e world to Cae sar or to ma mm on . Religion all toooften ende d u p as an opiate of the mass es, i.e., promising peoplefulfillment in the great by-and-by if they accept suffering and theworld as it is. In a way, each group was defining the sacred out ofhistory into another realm.

Placing the sacred be yo nd history protect ed faith from refutationand d isappo int men t bu t the cost wa s high . It is not surprising the nthat each faith tended to generate movements from time to time thatsou ght to redr ess the balance or that sought to bring the "m is sing"part of rede mptio n in to being . What was defined as "mi ssi ng" gr ewout of the inte raction of tradition, local cultu re, and the historicalcondition of the group. Since the concep t of redemp tion can bepushed toward a spiritual realization or a worldly one, both religionsdevelop ed parallel resp onse s along a spectrum of positions withineach faith. Th es e devel opme nts further c omplicat ed the relationsbetween the two faiths even as they ensured even greater overlap andparallelism bet we en the m.

In retrospec t, a key momen t of division came in the differentialresponse of the two groups to the destructi on o f the Se con d Tem ple.


17/110


1 5

The Christians reacted to the destruction as the best proof that theJews had forfeited their cove nan t. If the mai n vehicle and chan nel ofJewish relat ionsh ip to God ha s been cut off an d des troy ed, is this notdecisive proof that God has rejected Jews? In fact, the JewishChr istia ns left Jer usa lem before the final destru ction, thu s, as the Je wssaw it, aband onin g the Jewis h people. Ch ristians assu med that Jewryhad n o future a nd wen t off to ma ke their ow n religion, their ow n faith,their ow n home , their ow n future.

The Christians wer e wrong. Juda ism did not disappear, the Jews didnot disintegra te. The rabbis enc oun ter ed a crisis equal to the earlyChristians' experience of the C rucifixion, i.e ., being cut off from thechan nel of revelation and conne ction to God, with t he quest iongnawing at their faith: Why did evil triumph in this world? The samequestions that Christians raised, Jews under stood, too. Doe s thedestruction m ean that the Jews are finished? Doe s it me an the covenantis finished? The rabbis responded with faith in the covenant and trust inGod and the goal. The rabbis answered, as the prophets before them,that the destruction was punishment for sins, and therefore a mark ofdivine concernnot rejection. The most fundamental insight of therabbis was: Why did God not vanquish the Romans, even as God haddestroyed the Egyptians? The rabbis conclud ed that God had "pulledback"b ut not to aban don J ews and no t to withdraw from this worldbecause of some w eaken ing of concer n. Instead o f splitting the Red Seaagain, God w as cal ling the p eople of Israel to participate mor e fully inthe covenant. I nstead of winn ing the war for the Jews, God wasinstructing the Jews to participate in redemption themse lves. The Jewsfailed to do so adequately. They engaged in civil war and fought eachother instead of the Rom ans . Since they had timed and conducted theirrebellion wrongly, the Jewish failure was the Jewish failure, not God'srejection. The lesson of the destruction was not that God hadaba ndo ned Israel, but that God was deliberately hiding in order toevoke a greater response, a greater participation in the covenantal way.

This "hi din g" can be seen as a kind of "secularizat ion" process. Inthe temple, the manifest God showed overwhelming power. In theold temple, God was so manifest that holiness was especially"c onc ent rat ed" in Jerus alem . If one went into the temple without theproper purification ritual, it was like walking into a nuclear reactorwithout shielding: one would inescapably die. The synagogue is aplace one can enter with mi lder prepara tion and far less risk. Th edivine is present but its power is "shielded."


18/110


1 6

In "hiding," divine was calling on Israel to discern the divine,which was hidden but present everywhere. Th e manifest God is visiblein Jerusalem. The hidden God can be found ever ywhe re. On e neednot literally go to Jer usa lem to pray. One can pray anywhere in t heworld. The synagogue, which was a secondary institution before thedest ruct ion, beca me a central instit ution afterward. In the temple ,God spo ke, either directly, or thr oug h the breas tplat e, or through theprophet. The synagogue is the place you go to when God no longerspeaks to you.

The deepest paradox of the rabbis' teaching was that the more Godis hidden, the more God is present. The difference is that in the goodold days on e did not have to lookthe divine illumina tion lit up thewor ld. Now , on e must look. If on e looks more deepl y, one will seeGod everywhere. But to see God everywhere, one must understand.The key to religious understanding is learning. Th e Jewi sh people, inbiblical times an ignorant peas antry, awe d by sacramental, revelatoryexperiences in the temple, were trained by the rabbis to learn andstudy. Now that God no long er spea ks directly, ho w would one knowwhat God wants? The answer is to go to the synagogue; there onedoe s not see God visibly, but on e pra ys and asks Go d for guidance. Goask a rabbi: "Wh at doe s God want from m e ?" and the rabbi answers," I do not have direct access. I will study the record of God's pastrevelation. I will study the precedents for the situation and give youmy bes t ju dg me nt as to wh at God want s right no w." Not e that t hehuman agent takes a much more active part in discerning God's willbut the answer is much less certain at the end of the process.When ever o ne asks a questio n, rabbis disagre e. Whe n there is humanparticipation, there is disagreement but both views are valid.

In the triumph of the rabbis, there was an incredible transformationo f Judaism. The manifest, sacramental religion of the Bib l e wassucceeded by the internalized, participatory, more " l a i c " faith of therabbinic per iod . Ind eed , the rabbis came to the conc lus ion that theyhad lived throu gh event s comparable almost to a reacceptance of thecovenant. Even as Christians responded to their great religiousexperiences by proclaiming its record to be a New Covenant, Jewsresponded to theirs by affirming a renewal of the covenant.In short, to reverse a classic Christian explanation of therelat ionsh ip of Judai sm and C hrist ianity , I wou ld argu e that bothJudaism and C hristianity are outgro wths of and con tinuo us with thebiblical covenant; that indeed Christianity is closer to the biblicalworld, but not in the triumphalist way that Christianity has always


19/110

R E L A T I O N S H I P OF JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

1 7

claimed. Rath er, Christianity is a commentar y on the original Exodus,in whi ch the later event the C hrist eventis a manifest, "bibli cally"miraculous event. God becom es incarnat e and self-validating t hroughmiracles. Obviously, many Jews will argue that closing the biblicallyportrayed gap between the human and the divine, between the realand the ideal, by Incarnation, is idolatrous or at least against the grainof the biblical way . But even if Incarnation is contradict ory to somebiblical principles, the model i t s e l f is operat ing out of classic biblicalmode sthe nee d to achieve redempt ion, the desire to close the gapbetween the human and divine which includes divine initiatives, etc.Thus one can argue that Incarnat ion is improbable and violative ofothe r given biblical principl es or that it is unnecessa ry in light of thecont inui ng career of the Jewi sh peop le. But one can hardly rule out theopti on totally, particularly if it was inte nded for Genti les and notintended for Jews. This approach grants Christianity legitimate rootsin the biblical , but also locks it into a biblical mo de of theologica laction.

B y contrast , Juda ism went into a second stage, cont inuous butdevel oped out of the biblical mod e. In this stage, God is mor e hidden,Judaism is more worldly. In this stage, the human matures and thecovenantal model leads to greater responsibility for human beings. Ipersonal ly cons ider the rabbinic to be a more mature mode of religion.How ever , I wou ld al so affirm that the sacramental mode (Christi anity) is mos t appropria te for Genti les. Thi s is the first st ep of Gent ilecovenantal relationship with Go d. Je ws were in the same mod e intheir first stage, also. The choice of this mode be speaks the divinepedagogy of love wh ich approaches peopl e wh ere they are and , onl yafter they have grown into the covenant, leads them to ne w levels ofrelat ionshi p. Nor does my anal ysis foreclose the possibility thatsacramental Christianity is in fact a higher form of biblical religion,i.e., one in which God is even more manifest and p resent .

N . B . : The foregoing mode l of the relat ionship o f Juda ism andChr ist iani ty to each other and to biblical faith is offered with greatdiffidence. Th e statem ent that C hristi anity is closer to the biblicalmode can be misused to reassert the old Christian claim thatChristianity is the true outg rowth of the biblical covenant and thatJudaism is cut off from its roots. Moreover, the model opens greatvistas of Chri stian legit imacy in Jew ish eyes wit hout any guarant eethat the ongoi ng Christi an denial of Jew ish validity will be stopped.My affirmations, then, may feed Christian triumphalism andsup ersess ioni sm. I acknowl edg e the risk but I thi nk it is worth risk to


20/110


1 8

overco me the dismissals and divisiveness whi ch wea ken the role ofboth religions. I turn to Christians in trust and love and depend onthem to prevent triumphalist abuses. Failure to prevent would onlyprove that Christianity is not a valid hermeneutic on the biblicalcovena nt. It wou ld sugges t that the sum of wo e broug ht into t heworld by Chr isti anity will go on and on, unde rmi ning its claim to be alegitimate major step forward on the road to redemption.

B y the same token, many Christians will find the concept that Godcalled Jewry to a new level of relationship in the covenant a denial oftheir ow n b e l i e f in Chris t as the ultimate event. I do not underestimatethe challenge in giving up the monopoly claims or in recognizingJuda ism as a form of inde pend entl y valid relationship to God. Ye t,this model offers the affirmat ion of the fullest possibilit ies of Christ:from God Incarnate to prophet or mess iah or teache rfreed at least ofthe incubus of hatre d a nd m onopo listic claims of ow nin g God . For thismo de l to work, Je ws as well as Chris tians will hav e to have faith in thesufficiency of God's capacity to offer love enough for everyone andthat the Lord wh o is the Mak om/Pl ace, who is "th e ground of allexistence" has many messengers.

IN A N E W E R A : A F T E R M O D E R N I T Y A N DA F T E R H O L O C A U S T A N D R E B I R T H O F I S R A E L

The history which both religions denied in order to claim their ownabsol ute validity cam e back to haunt th em . In the mod ern period , therevolt of humans against oppression, suffering, and inequality led toan en orm ous grow th of seculari sm and rejection of religion. BothChristianity and Judaism lost serious ground to revolt in the name ofthe very goal they wer e pledg ed to achie ve in the first plac e. And bo thfaiths were forced back into history by the overwhelming weight ofmodern culture and scholarship which continually dug at theirclaimed foundatio ns, i.e. , tran scen dent extrahistorical truth. Modernschola rship insisted that t he denial of history is false. Revelation is inhistory. To deny that, one must ignore or contradict archeology,anth ropol ogy, sociolo gy, phil osoph y, hi story, whic h is to say, to bejudged to be false, nonfactual, by the standards of mod ern culture.Reluctantly but inexorably, both religions have been forced toconfront their own historicity.

An event of great historical magnitude has now gone beyondmodernity in pushing faith bac k into the ma els tro m of history. In theHolocau st, Jew s discovered t hey ha d n o choice but to go back into


21/110


1 9

histo ry. If the y did not have power, t hey woul d be dead. T he onlyway to prevent a recurrence was for Jews to go to their land , establi sha state and protect themselves, to take responsibility so that thecovenant people could be kept alive. In this generation, the Jewishpeoplesecular as well as religioustook responsibility for its fate,and for the fate of the divine covenant with Jewry. This is themean ing, not always reco gnized, of the re-establishm ent of the stateo f Israel.

Christians also have been forced back into history by the impact ofthis event. Those faithful Christians realized that the evil portrait ofJud ais m, the wh ole attempt to assure Christian triumphalis m, hadbecome a source of the teac hing of cont emp t an d had convictedChr istianity or implicat ed it in a genocide to wh ich it wa s indifferentor silent. The Holocaust forced Jews and Christians to see that theattempt to protect faith against history was an error and that bothreligions can have no credibility in a world in which evil can totallytriu mph. I hav e argued e lse where that the true les son of theCrucifixion had been misunderstood by Christians because of theirpast trium phal ism. In the light of the Holocaust , one wou ld argue thatthe true l esson of the Cruci fixion is that if Go d in perso n ca me dow non earth in hu ma n flesh and w as put on the cros s and crucified , th enGod woul d be broke n. Go d would be so exhaus ted by the agony thatGod would end up losing faith, and saying, "My God, my God, whyhave you forsaken m e ? " If Go d coul d not survive the cross , thensurely no hum an can be expected to. So the overw helmi ng call forbot h re ligions is to stop the Crucif ixion, not to glorify it. Jus t as Jews,in re spo nse, took up arms and to ok up th e powe r of the state, soChristians are called simultaneously to purge themselves of thehatr ed that made the m indifferent to oth ers , and to take up theresponsibility of working in the world to bring perfection. This is theco mm on chal lenge of bo th faiths; they can ill afford to go on focusingon each other as the enemy.

Ther e is anot her possible implication. Destructi on of the templemea nt that God was mor e hidden. There fore, one had to look for Godin the more "secular" area. Living after the Holocaust, the greatestdest ruction of all time in Jew ish history, o ne woul d ha ve to say thatGod is even more hidden . Theref ore, the sacred is even more presen tin every "secular" area. Building a better world, freeing the slaves,curing s ickness , responsibility for the kind o f econ omic perfection thatis ne eded to make this a wor ld of true hu ma n dignity, all theseactivities pose as secu lar. But in the profoundest sort of wa y these


22/110


The question is not: Where was God during theHolocaust? . . . God was with God's peoplesuffering,starving, being gassed and burnt alive.

The real quest ion is: Wha t was God 's messag e wh en Go d did no t.stop the Holoc aus t? Go d is calling hu ma ns to take full responsibil ityfor the ach ieve men t of the covenan t. It is their obligation to take armsagainst evil and to stop it.

The implica tion of this mode l is that Judais m is entering a thirdstage, or at least a new l evel of covenan tal deve lop men t. Th is is theultimate logic of covenan t: If God wan ts hu mans to grow to a finalperfec tion, t hen the ultimate logic of cove nan t is for hu ma ns to takefull responsibility. This doe s not me an the huma n arrogance thatdismisses God; the human arrogance that says more human power isautomatically good. "Covenantal commitment" implies the humilityo f kno wing tha t the hu ma n is not God . Th e hu ma n is like God but isultimately called by Go d to be the partn er. Thi s impli es the humility ofrecognizing that one is a creature as well as a creator. Using thiscovenant al under stand ing, one can perceive God as the Presenceeverywheresuffering, sharing, participating, calling. But trust inGod or awar ene ss of Go d is necess ary but not sufficient for living outfaith. The awa ren ess m odera tes the use of power ; trust curbs powerethically. But the theological con sequ enc e is that without takingpower, without getting involved in history, one is religiouslyirresponsible. To pray to God as a substitute for taking power isblasphemous.

2 0

activities are wh ere God is mos t pres ent . Wh en God is mos t hidden ,God is presen t every wher e. If wh en God was hidden after thedest ruction of the temp le, one could find Go d in the synag ogu e, the nwh en God is hid den after Au sch wi tz, one mus t find God in the s treet,in the hosp ital , in the bar. And that responsib ility of hol y secularity isthe responsibility of all hum an being s.Similarly, apply the rabbis ' analys is of wh y God did not stop t heRo man s to the question of wh y God did not stop the Holo caust .Thequestion is not: Wher e was God during the Holocau st? God was wher eGod should have been during the Holocaust. God was with God'speoplesuffering, starving , bei ng gassed and burnt alive. Whe re elsewould God be, when God's people are being treated that way?


23/110


21

The ne w hu ma n responsib ility level implies that the events of ourlifetime are revelatory. Theref ore, on e has to incorpora te those eventsinto religion an d into our under stan ding . If w e are to be true partnerswi th Go d, and if w e have full resp onsibili ty, then we are morallyrespo nsibl e for our ow n traditions. If ther e is any thin g in our ow ntraditions that dem ean s, or denies, or degrades some body else, thenone ca nno t answer : it is the Wor d of Go d and so be it. On e mustanswer: it is my responsibility. God has given me a call to takeresponsibility. Eve n if that me an s one mus t argue with G od orconfront G od , that also is respons ibility. If, ind eed , G od said that onlya male can stand in for God, then someone who is faithful to Godwould have to argue with God: "It is not rightwoman is also yourcreature , in you r ima ge ." If Go d declared the Jews blind and hateful,to be treated as pariahs, then one must confront God and call Godback to the universal love which God has revealed to humanity.

This is a time of major trans formatio n in wh ich th e past experience son the road to perf ectio n are reint erp rete d in light of th e event s of ourlifetime for both religions. I believe we are living in an age of theJewish re-ac cepta nce of the coven ant. Th e re-creation of Israel is theclassic coven anta l sym bol. If you w ant to know if there is a Go d in theworld a nd is the re still ho pe , if you w an t to kn ow w he th er t here is stilla promise of redemptionthe Bible says one goes back to Israel andma kes the streets of Jeru sal em res oun d wi th the laughter of childrenand the soun ds o f bride and gro om dancing . That is what ishap pen ing in Jer usa lem right no w. This is true notwith stan ding allthe political, eco nom ic, an d mo ral flaws of the ne w earthly Jeru sale m.The flaws , the tragic conflict s wi th A rabs , th e difficulties, all the se arepart of the funda ment al proo f that here we have the hid den Pr ese nce.This mo me nt of revelation is fully hum an; this mo me nt of re demp tionis humanly fully responsible in the presence of God.

One might suggest that the Holocaust has its primary impact onJuda ism . Neverth ele ss, as a Jew ish theol ogian , I sugge st thatChristianity also cannot be untouched by the event. At the least, Ibelieve that Christianity will have to enter its second stage. If wefollow the rabbi s' model, this stage will be marke d by great er"w orl dli nes s" in holi ness . Th e role of the laity wou ld shift from bein grelatively passive observers in a sacramental religion to full (or fuller)participation. In this stage, Christianity would make the move frombei ng out of history to taking pow er, i.e., taking part in the struggle toexercise pow er to advance rede mption. Th e religious mess age wouldbe not accepting inequality but demanding its correction. The


24/110


2 2

move men t is toward learning and understanding as agains t hierarchyand myst ery. C hrist iansa s Jews will recover the true role ofIsrael/Jacob wh o strug gles with Go d and w ith peo ple , for the sake ofGod and of humanity.

Unless this shift takes place, those Christians who seek to correctChris tianity vis-^-vis Jud ais m will be bl ocked by the fact that withinthe New Testament i t s e l f are hateful images of Jews. Therefore,humans must take full responsib ilitynot out of arro ganc e, not out ofidolatry. It mu st be done with out maki ng God into the convenie nt on ewh o says wha t o ne want s to hear . Ou t of the fullest responsibility toits covenant partner, Christianity can undergo the renewal which Ibelieve it must undert ake.

The unfini shed age nda of the Jew ish-C hrist ian dialogue is therecognition of the profound interrelationship betwe en both. Eachfaith com mu nit y experi enc ing the love of Go d and t he cho sen nes s ofGod wa s temp ted into saying: I am the only one chos en. Ther e was ahuman failure to see that there is enough love in God to choose againand again and again. Both faiths in renewal may yet apply this insightnot just to each other but to religions not yet worked into thisdialogu e. Hum an s ar e called in this gener ation to ren ew thecovenanta renewal which will demand openness to each other,learning from each other, and a respect for the distinctiveness of theongoi ng validity of each other. Suc h ope nne ss puts no religious claimbe yo nd possibility but place s the comp leti on of total rede mptio n atthe center of the age nda .

Judaism as a religion of redemption believes that in ages of greatdestruction, one must summon up an even greater response of lifeand of re-creation. Nothi ng less than a messianic mom ent couldpossibly begin to correct the balance of the world after Auschwitz.This is a generation called to an overwhelming renewal of l i f e , aren ewa l built on suc h love and such po we r that it wou ld truly restorethe image of God to every human being in the world.


25/110

J E W S AND CHRISTIANS:T H E CONTEMPORARY DIALOGUE

J O H N T. PAWLIKOWSKI

The age of pros elyt izing is over; the age of dialo gue hasbegun betw een Jews and Christians.

A Jewish leader in the contemporary interreligious dialogue, RabbiHenry Siegman of the American Jewish Cong ress, once termed thechurch-synagogue relationship "asymmetri cal." What he meant wasthat Jews and Christians frequently co me to mutual sharing today withdifferent goals and different histories. Thi s needs to be unders tood byboth sides if the dialogue is to be meaningful ly sustained.

Jews, as a minority, more often than not look to the dialogue as awa y of ensuring the security of the people Israel throughout thewor ld. Eradication of the vesti ges of classical anti -Sem itis m fromChristian educ ation an d liturgy naturally becom es a prime c ompo nent of this goal. Genera lly speakin g, spiritual and theolog icalenri chme nt has not be en very high on the Jew ish agend a. Christianson the other hand are usually led to the dialogue from a twofoldmotivation. First, there is the genuine desire to overcome the brutallegacy of Christian a nti-Sem itism whi ch, wh ile not the sole instigatingcause of Naziism, certainly was its indisp ensabl e s eedb ed. Allied tothis goal is the desire to improve concrete relations be tw ee n churchand synagogue today, in part to forge coalitions on other joint socialobjectives. But jus t as vital is the real ization that a prop erunderstanding of Judaismbiblica l, Se con d Tem ple , and postbibli-calis absolutely crucial to the full articulation of the basic Chri stianmessage.

J o h n T. Pawlikowski, O. S. M., is professor of theology at the Catholic Theological Union inChicago. His books include The Challenge of the Holocaust for Christian Theology ( 19 7 8 ) andChrist in the Light of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Hispanic r e a d e r s will be interested inhis art ic le on the Jewish roots of Christianity and their implication for dialogue, "Nues trasRaices J u d i a s , " available from the a u t h o r . Pawlikowski has conducted workshops inbusine ss ethics for c o r p o r a t e officials, has been a consultant to the U.S . Catholic Conferenceon energy questions, and has been involved in politics and ethical questions in Poland,Northern Ireland, and South Africa .

2 3


26/110


2 4

Among those Christians who have been touched by the dialoguewith Jews and the Jewish tradition there exists a growing conviction thata subtle Marcionism still resides in the churches. This anti-Jewishdisease not only harms relations with Jews but blocks the church fromgenuine engagement with the world. The latter point has beenemphasize d, albeit indirectly, in the insistence of several prominentliberation theologians that the liberating spirit of the Exodus covenantaltradition must be com e central in present-day Christian faith expression.Authentic renewal in the church is dependent on a recovery of theJewish context of its origins. Judaism stood at the heart of Jesus'spirituality and tha t of the early church. Judaism was no t mere lyperceived as prelude, much less foil, as Christians have so oftenmaintained subsequently . S o even if the Jewish response to actualdialogue might be slow at times and places (at least partiallyunder standable given the history of Christian anti-Semitism) Christiansstill have every reason to engage in a thorough study of the Jewishtradition past and presen t for the sake of their own religious integrity.

In the following pages we will explore the issues from the church'sside in the dialogue, bo th in terms of impro ved Christian -Jewishrelations and the enhanced understanding of Christianity i t s e l fthrough a greater appreci ation of its Jew ish roots. Ther e are, of course,issues that the Jew ish com mun ity mu st face for hon est encount er w ithChristians. But before Christians push the Jewish community toohard on som e of these , we need to co me to grips with the agend a onour side. We mus t never forget that there has be en a trem endo usimbalance in our relationship over the centuries. Though this factsho uld no t prevent C hris tians from making justified critiques ofJewish stances on some issue s, our historical "op pre sso r" statusrelative to the Jewish people does place upon us the burden of startingthe reconciliation proces s as a demo nstra tion of our sincerity a ndconversion.

The first issue that deserves our attention is in fact one of theoldestthe Crucifixion story. Throughout the centuries the accountso f Jesus' death served as a source of deep conflict between thecommunities. Jews, ass ume d by Chri stians to be responsible for Jesus'death, wer e frequently perse cute d as "Chris t-kille rs." Vatican II andnumerous Protestant denominations have laid to rest this historicdeicide charge against the Jews whi ch mode rn biblical scholarship hassho wn to be basele ss. But this change at the official teaching level hasnot ende d all the proble ms conn ect ed with the narration of Christ' sdeath. On a popular level ma ny believing mem ber s of the c hurch


27/110

J E W S A N D C H R I S T I A N S

Many Christians still see Jesus as standing alone against theauthorities, but in actual fact many other Jews also opposedthe Romans and the oppressive priestly elite of theJerusalem Temple.

point well some years ago when he wrote, "The symbol of theagonizing God is the Cross of Christ. It is tragic that this symbolshould have become a symbol of division between Jews andChr isti ans, for the realit y to wh ich it point s is a Jew ish reality as well,the reality of suffering an d mar tyr dom " (Worldview, Sept ember , 1974,p. 29).

Until this more positive side of the Crucifixion story relative toJuda ism begins to eme rge in Christian con sciou sness the anti-Semiticinterpretation long associ ated with it will not be finally excised fromthe church.

In relating the story of Je sus ' death the Christian ch urche s nee d tobeg in stres sing that the religious ideals wh ich Je sus preached, andwhich he tried to imp lemen t in the social struct ures that were part ofhis milieu, we re shar ed by the most creative and forward-lookingforces in the Judaism of the period. It was this preaching and actionthat brought J esu s to Calvary. Mos t Chr isti ans still look upon Jesus asstanding alone in his challenge to the authorities, as in conflict withthe entire Jewish popu lati on of the period. In actual fact Jes us and hisfollowers stood in concert with a significant part of the Jewishcommunity in opposing the Romans and the oppressive priestly eliteo f the Jerusalem Temple. In a real way his death bore witness to thesame ideals proclaimed by other rabbis.

2 5

remai n profoundly tainted in their outlook on the Jew ish peop le bythis fable. Popular culture with its Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspelland with its myriad passion plays tends to reinforce the stereotype ofJewish collective responsibi lity for Je su s' deat h that has been sotraditional in the churches.Over and above removing the negative aspects of the classicdepiction of the Crucifixion story it is important for people in thechurch to begin to recognize its potential for unifying Jews andChris tians. The Luth eran ethicist Franklin She rma n capture d this


28/110


The time has come to eliminate the term "Old Testament"from the Christian vocabulary about the Bible and to useinstead the term "Hebrew Scriptures."

Jesus' execu tio ners , the majority of the Jewi sh popula tion , insistsRivkin, saw in his Crucifixion "their own plight of helplessness,humiliation and subjection."

Another important element in the restoration of the Jewish contexto f Chris tiani ty is a dee per appreci ation within the church of the firstpart of our Bibl ethe Hebre w Scrip tures . Too often Christ ians havesimply looked upon the so-called Old Tes ta ment as a prelude to thespiritual insights found in the New Testament. We need to increaseour consciousness of the Hebrew Scriptures as a source of ongoingreligious meaning for us in their own right, and not merely as abackdrop for the teaching of Jesus. It is helpful here to recall that forJesus and his apostles there was no "Old" Testament. They viewedthe Hebrew B i b l e as "t he Sc rip tu res ," as standi ng at the core of theirreligious identi ty. Th is is an attitude contemporary Christianity needsto recapture. Contemporary Christian spirituality and preachingremain peripherally influenced at best by the Hebrew Scriptures.

The time has come to eliminate the term "Old Testament" from theChristian vocabulary about the B i b l e . Tho ugh admittedly the word oldcan conno te "r eve ren ce" or "long-stan ding exper ien ce," used inreference to the first part of the B i b l e it tends to create an attitude that

2 6

The Jewi sh historian El l i s Rivkin has broug ht out as well as anyon ethe connections between Jesus and Judaism relative to the Crucifixion. He insists that for a proper understanding of Jesus' Crucifixionwe need to replace the question who crucified him with the questionwhat crucified him. As Rivkin interprets the eve nts , Jes us died a victimo f Roman imperial policy. His death was ordered by the type ofpolitical regime which throughout history has eliminated those whohave stood up for human freedom, insight, and a new way ofunderstanding human interrelationships. Tho se Jew s wh o mighthave collaborated wth the Romans in Jesus' execution deserve to becon dem ned in Rivkin's view. The Jewi sh mass es, however, weregreatly oppress ed under the Rom an colonial governme nt, so much sothat they would undertake an outright revolt against its tyrannicalauthority less than thirty years later. Hence, rather than serving as


29/110


The period 150 B . C . E . to C.E. 50 was not altogether sterilereligiously and gave rise to many new, creative groups,including the Pharisees.

dev elo p into an attitude that se es postbib lical Jewish religiousexpressio n as totally shal low and deca den t. This is far from thehistorical situation. Central to avoiding this dangerous trap is aren ewe d appreciation of growth during the Sec ond Temp le period inJudaism.

Most Chr isti ans remain unaw are of a gap in the Bible ofapproximately two centuries. The last book of the Hebrew Scripturesthe Second Book of Macc abees dates from around 150 B . C E ,And even if we includ e the Wis do m literature written in Gree k arou nd

2 7

these pre-Christian books are inferior and outdated in their religiousoutlo ok wh en co mpar ed with passag es of the New Testa ment . In sucha context the Hebrew Scriptures at best appear as a foreword to thefullness of faith found in the Gos pel s and Epist les and at worst aswor ks motivated by legalism and spiritual shall owne ss whichChristians can ignore without in any way impoverishing theirspirituality. Conti nue d use of the term "O ld Test am ent " tend s to keepChristians from the realization that the Hebrew Scriptures containrich spiritual insights vital in their own right. It likewise continues togive credence to the discredited contrast between Christianity as areligion of love with Judaism as a faith perspective marked by coldlegalism.

Willingness on the part of the church to forego use of the ter m " Ol dTestament" would serve as a dem ons tra tio n of goo d will in thedialogue. Su ch a deliberate adjustment of langua ge would alsomanifest in a powerful way a fundamental shift in the church'stheological out loo k vis-^-vis Jud ais m. It would mark a significantmove away from the traditionally negative approach, with its stresson invalidity an d outd atedn ess, toward the clear affirmation of thecontinuing vitality of the Jewish people's faith perspective.

As muc h as the ne w Chr istian interest in the Hebr ew Scriptu res is tobe appl auded and hopefully in crease d, it also repres ents a danger toan adequat e unders tand ing of Juda ism within the church. Christiansmay fall into the trap of thinking that the only valid and living form ofJudaism is that found in the He brew Scrip ture s. Thi s can easily


30/110


2 8

9 0 B . c . E . (and not part of the Jewish or Protestant canon), much morethan a hundred year s pas sed until the appe ara nce of the initial Pauli neletters around C . E . 50. Th e usual C hristian attitude has been that thiswas a very sterile period in Judaism in which people had lost touchwit h the soul of the Jew ish religio us tradition rep res ent ed by t hePenta teuch , the Prop hets , and the Psalm s. A n emp ty legalismdominated Jewish faith at this time and hence many Jews werehungry for the new spiritual insights offered by the early churchsoran the classic stereotype. As a result of a growing body of Christianand Jewi sh scho lar shi p on this historical peri od, we no w kno w thatsuch a picture of a sterile, legalistic Jud ai sm in the Se co nd Templeperiod, or wha t Christians som etim es term the "i ntertest amentalperi od, " is far from accurate. True, som e segme nts of Judais m hadfallen into such a state. But new cr eative Je wi sh groups emerged onthe scene to count er this regressive tenden cy. A nd it wa s the seinno vati ve forms of Jud ais m that mo st directly influe nced theteac hing of Je sus and t he struct ures o f early Chris tianit y.

Among these new innovative groups the Pharisees were the mostpromi nent. Th e men tio n of the term "P ha ri se e" typically conjures upamong Christians images of fierce opposition to Jesus, of harshlegalism, of shallow piety. Th e Pharis ees seem to most churchp eopleto be representatives of everything Jes us con dem ned . Th is understanding of the Pharise es, how ever , symb olize s the general ignoranceof Sec ond Tem ple Juda ism in the churc h. Fortu nately an increasingnumber of biblical scholars and historians have begun to question thisChristian bias.

T h e Pharis ees sought to make the To rah co me alive in every Jew byadapting its commandments to changing life patterns in Judaism.Con temp orar y research has show n that the Pharisees wer e no strangersto the deepes t meani ng of the law. It no w app ears likely that Jesusattacked only certain groups within the Pharisee movement, not themo vement as a who le. A nd even in these controversies their differencesdid not obliterate the similarity of their basic position on what it meantto be a religious person. In large measure Jesus' battle with "thePharise es" nee ds to be under stood as an "in- hou se" struggle.

A s with mo st scholarly quest ions about the anci ent period, there isfar from full agreement among present-day researchers about allaspects of the Pharisee movement. Hence some caution is necessaryin reaching conclusi ons about Pharisais m i t s e l f an d its relatio nships toJesus and the early church. But running through the variousviewpoints are some trends which include the following.


31/110


29

Cent ral to the Pha risee challe nge to the esta blished form of Judai smafter the rebuilding of the Second Tem ple stood a ne w outlook on therelationship between God and the human perso n. It wa s one markedb y a noti on of a far mor e per sonal and int imate divine-h uman linkthan previous expre ssion of Juda ism could conceive. This newperception represented so fundamental a change in religiousconsciousness that the Pharisees felt obligated to replace the namesfor God found in the Hebr ew S criptures with ones mor e expressive ofthe new union between God and the human family wh ich they haduncovered. Among the principal names they applied to God was"F at he r." While this term has definite limitations in our era beca use o fit s inability to expr ess fully the femin inity of Go d, in its setti ng it spokenot of gend er superiority but of a hei ght ened sens e of the profoundityo f Go d' s link to eac h individual per son .

This ne w sens e of divine-h uman intimacy ultimately undercu t thebasis of the intermediary/here ditary syst em of religious elitism whichprevailed in the older Sad duce an temple/priest hood con cept o f Jewishreligion, up till the n the dom ina nt form of Jud ais m. As the Pharis eessaw it, all me n and wo me n, n o mat ter wha t their social status orbloodline, ha d such standing in the sight of Go d that the y could relateto God on a personal basis without further need to use the templepriests as intermediaries. The prominent Jewish scholar on Pharisaism, J a c o b Neusner, has written the following about the ultimateimplica tions of this aspec t of the m ove me nt in his volume From PoliticsTo Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Prentice-Hall, 1 9 7 3 ) : "ThePharisees thus arrogated to themselvesand to all Jews equallythestatus of Temple pries ts, and per formed ac tions restrict ed to priestson account of that s tatus. Th e table of every Je w in his home was s eenas being like the table of the Lord in the Jerusalem Temple. Thecom man dme nt, 'Y ou shall be a kingd om of priests and a holy peop le,'was taken literally: everyone is a priest, everyone must keep thepriestly laws."

T h e con scio usne ss transformation regarding the Go d-h umanrelationship led the Pharisees to undertake a major overhaul of theliturgical, ministerial, and institutional l i fe of Second Temp le Judaismand, in so doing, lay some of the groundwork for the early Christianchur ch. Picking up the mantle of the proph ets, the Pharisees hop ed totranslate prophetic ideals into the daily lives of the Jewish people oftheir time.

Among the revolutionary changes brought about by the Pharisees


32/110


Among the contributions of the Pharisees were thedevelopment of the synagogue and the growth of the role ofthe rabbi.

Frequently temple and synagogue are employed as synonyms. Thisregrettably has the effect of blurring t he profound differences in theirbasic conception. The temple was seen primarily as the house of God,the synagogue as the house of the people of God. The distinction wascrucial. Th e templ e served chiefly as a locale for cult and sacrifice. Thesynagogue, as developed by Pharisaism, was intended to go farbey ond this goal. It wa s designed to addres s the total nee ds of thecommunit yprayer, study, justic e.

The second innovative feature of the Phari see revolution was thegrowth of the role of the rabbi who gradually replaced the templepriest as the central religious figure in Judaism. The rabbi's task was tointerpret and, more importantly, to specify the religious obligationsincumbent upon a believing Je w. He was nei the r prophet nor priest.An y layman could bec ome a rabbi regardles s of his birth. Th e rabbinicrole was an acquired no t an inherited o ne in Second Tem ple Judaism.It wa s based on the stren gth of a pe rso n' s service to the community .

The crucial dim ens ion of the rabbina te that need s careful scrutiny isthe fact that the rabbi was not a cultic figure. His role was one ofinstruction and inte rpretat ion. Wha t is especially significant about therabbinate is its noncultic status. A person whose primary missionconsis ted in offering specific interp retations with re spect to thereligious and social problems of the day gradually replaced the templepriest as the principal human symbo l and representative o f Jewishreligious commitment.

A new apprecia tion of the synag ogu e and the rabbinate asdeveloped by the Pharisees will provide a sound basis for discussionsabout lay ministry and about such movements as the "basiccommunities" springing up in Latin America and elsewhere. It willalso aid Chri stian self -unders tanding in other central areas such aseuchari stic theology , the theological mea nin g of tradition, afterlife,and social ethi cs.

In view of this positive link bet we en Chri stiani ty and Pharisaism we3 0

was the replacement of the temple as the central religious institutionin Jewish l i fe with a new organizing center called the synagogue.


33/110

J E W S A N D CHRISTIANS

No discussion of the State of Israel in the dialogue willprove successful unless Christians clearly acknowledge thevulnerability of Israel.

No discussion of the State of Israel in the dialogue will provesuccessful unless Christians clearly acknowledge the vulnerability ofIsrael. It remains deeply affected by the general turbulence in MiddleEast politics , sup erp ower rivalries, and a pervasive anti-Israel

need to take up the supposed hostility in the Synoptic Gospelsbet wee n Jesu s and the Jewi sh move men t. Several viewpoints haveemerged in recent scholarship. Prof. Paul Winter, for example, insiststhat the fierce oppositio n bet wee n Jesus and "th e Pha ris ees" depicts asituat ion that came to pass wel l into the first cen tury whe n the churchand the synagogue had go ne their separate ways . It was notrepresentative of the actual relationship in Jesus' lifetime.

Another possible approach is based on the research of the IsraeliNe w Test amen t scholar David Flusser. He has sho wn that there weremany competing groups within the overall Pharisee movement andthey frequently spoke quite harshly about one another. In otherwords, Jesus' con demn ati ons m ay very well reflect internal disputesrather than a total condemnation of Pharisaism.

Jesus see ms mos t closely identified with what F lus ser terms the"love Pha ris ees ," those w ho m ade the notion o f love central to Jewishreligious b e l i e f and expression. In this perspective the Gospeldenunc iatio ns, even if they by cha nce reflect the authent ic words ofJesus, wer e aimed primari ly at certain sectors of Phar isai sm which , inthe judgment of the "love" Pharisees (including Jesus), were notliving up to the core ideals of the mov emen t. In either case, the surfaceantagonism between Jesus and the Pharisees must be read in a farmore nuanced fashion than has generally been the case inChristianity. Also, this surface antagonism should not blindChr isti ans to the profou nd debt both Jesus and th e apostol ic churchowe d to this creative Jewi sh mo veme nt.

Turn ing to more contem porar y question s in the dialogue, we comehead-o n to the ques tio n of Israel . It cannot be avoide d. Thi s questionis not s imply a political matte r, t hough surely the politics of theMiddle East will enter the contemporary conversations betweenChristians and Jews.

31


34/110


3 2

theological stance in Islamic religious circles. Israel's national ethosrem ain s stron gly con dit ion ed by the trauma o f the Holocaus t and theme mo ry of per sec uti on in Ar ab lands an d in the U S S R . As a survivoro f Auschwitz once told me on a late-night walk on his kibbutz innorthern Galilee, "You must understand that this land is ourresurr ection ." To o few Christi ans, especially ma ny of those preparedto criticize Israeli gove rnm ent al policy, appreciate or affirm thiscon tinu ing se nse of vulnerabili ty. All suc h criticism from C hristi ansthat fails to displa y a dee p sens itivity for this underst anda ble sens e ofJewish vulnerability deserves to fall on hard ground.

A nd t he Holoc aus t too can not be forgotten in any discussio n ofIsrael. Th e moral stain remai ns deeply embed ded in the C hristiansoul. While proper response to Christian failure during the Naziperio d sho uld no t be excessi ve guilt but co nti nue d support of thepeople Israel today in both their religious and political dimensions,the Holocaust must remain central to Christian memory. And whilethe es tab lis hme nt of the St ate of Israel in 1 9 4 8 should ne ver be viewedas a re co mp en se for the Holo caus t from the Wes t, the deep , abidingconnection bet we en the two events needs to be underst ood byChristians.

Once Christians have grasped this Jewish sense of vulnerabilitythen they properly m ay raise quest ions about chan ging aspects ofIsraeli life and policy. For one, Christians will need to understandbetter the gradual eme rge nce of Oriental Jew ry, largely people wh ofled to Israel from Ar ab countr ies. T he y are acquiring a ne w social andpolitical prominence that in all likelihood will profoundly affect theoverall etho s of the country and in time have important cons eque ncesfor the Christi an-Jewish dialogue. Some have see n the Oriental Jewi shcom mun ity as archco nservative in terms of a political accom modati onwith the Palestinians. But some Oriental Jewish leaders such asformer Israeli pres iden t Yit zhak Na von have caut ioned about anyeasy ass ump tio ns i n this regar d. O ve r and a bove politics there is thewho le range of Orienta l Jew ish religious thought and liturgy whi chhas hardly penetrat ed Christian consci ousne ss in the dialogue. Theascendency of Oriental Jewry may be the catalyst for freeing theChristian-Jewish dialo gue from its almost exclusively Weste rn contextup till now.

The issue of Israeli trea tme nt o f Ar abs, bot h in Israel prop er wh er ema ny h ave spo ken of a gro wi ng margina lization of Israel 's Ara bcitizens and in the administered areas, will grow as an issue inChristian-Jewish relations. Certain Christian groups have tend ed to


35/110


3 3

overexaggerate the negative record of Israel in this regard. But thereare definite problems of domestic prejudice as well as seemingannexa tion ist policies on the West Bank that can no longer be sweptunder the carpet in the dialogue. This also holds true for the case ofJewish terrorism against Christian and Muslim institutions in thecoun try. Whi le such Jew ish terrorism pales in comp ari son to terrorismfrom the Arab side, it represents a growing concern, as doesincreasing ultraorthodox Jew ish influence in the city of Jeru sale m.Finally, Israel's growing involvement in political events in CentralAmerica and Africa must be addressed. This involvement is the basisfor incre ased critici sm of Israel with in the church es by those with littledirect interest in the Midd le East. While firmly resisting the attemptsin some church and political circles to isolat e Israe l totally as a politicalpariah, there is room here for serious questions by Christians to theirJewish partner s in the dialogue. Jew ish appea ls to Israeli self-interest,while to be taken seriously, will not end the concern on the part ofChr isti ans. Apart from political dimens ions of the Arab-Israeliconflict, the dialogue will also need to turn its attention to whatscholars have terme d the Jew ish "land tradi tion, " a tradition withdeep roots in the Hebrew Scriptures. Pioneering work by severalChri stian scholars will prove especia lly useful in the discussion.Prominent among these scholars are W. D. Davies, Walter Bruegge-man n, and Joh n To wn se nd. Alth ough differences exist in theirperspectives, they noneth ele ss see m to agree that (1) the NewTes tam ent does not clearly rule out Jud ais m's historic claims to theland; and (2 ) that land remains import ant for Chris tian faith as well, atleast to the extent that the pro cess of salvation in Chris tianity is deeplyrooted in the process of human history. (Davies's most recent vol ume,The Territorial Dimension of Judaism, is especia lly strong in bringi ng outthe land dime nsion of Judai sm.)

While recognizing that the theological appr oach to the land may beone of the basic differences bet ween Christianity and Juda ism,Chri stians can still profit greatly both in their own self-unde rstandingas well as in their understanding of Je ws thro ugh discussions of theland tradition. Christians can also properly address some questions totheir Jew ish bro ther s and sisters. Does the land tradition in Judaismnecessarily deman d perpe tual sovere ignty over a piece of real estate inthe Middle East? Cou ld the values inhe rent in the land tradition besustained under some other political arr angemen t? Put ano the r way,is the nation-state defide in Jewi sh theology? Another major questionconcern

winter 1984-1985 quarterly review - theological resources for ministry

Documents