I: Orientation The Need for a Renewed Theology of Israel
OneofthetrulymonumentalandpressingquestionsfortheChurchtodayishowit shouldunderstanditselfanditsconstitutingmessageinthesituationofglobalpluralism andcultural-religiousinteraction. Notthatinterreligiousorpluralisticscenarioshavenot previouslybeenhistoricalexperiencesoftheChurch,inwhichshehasattemptedtolive andspeakherGospel. Butthedegreeandimmediacywithwhichcompetingreligious sensibilities,worldviewsandpracticesinterminglewith,collideandchallengeChristianity anditsGospelspeakinghaveendowedthisquestionwithmorepoignantrelevancyand urgencythaneverbefore. Inthissituation,thefollowingessaylaborstowarddeveloping, insomesmallway,theunderstandingofreligiouspluralismbyarenewedtheologyof Jewish-Christian relationsinparticular.
TheparticularselectionoftheJewish-Christianaxisfordiscussionintendstosay somethingalsoaboutthenatureofChristiantheologyofreligionsitself. Insteadoftreating thequestionofotherfaithsasoneofanundifferentiatedmass,thecomparisonof particular ideasandpracticesrepresentsthemostbeneficialandplausiblewayforward. Certain constellationswillemergeintheinterreligiousengagementthatcorrespondtotherelative proximityordistanceofagivenreligioustraditionfromtheChristianunderstandingand thepotentialoverlapofitsclaimsandsymbol-world. Moreconcretely,therelationto Judaismembodiesa unique case forChristianFaith. Foritisnotonlyaquestionofan exteriorencounterwithaforeignreligio-culturalmentality,buttheJewishFaithincludes sharedelementsthatare internal totheChristianStoryitself. Inthisway,theJewish CommunityrelatesmoreintimatelytoChristiantheologyasalocusofitsownselfreflectivediscourse,andso,consequently,anyelidingofthedifferencebetweenthe questionofatheologyofIsrael1 andthemoregenericquestionofatheologyofreligions willalreadyhaveembarkedfromaninsufficientplatform.
1 In this case, “Israel” here refers to the biblical, socio-historical, and primarily theo-communal, category of peoplehood and notto questions of the Land and the Modern Nation-State, which are themselves crucial and related questions but here distinguished and prescinded from for the purpose of scope and focus. Given the interior theological developments of Christianity in response to its own Claim & Scriptures, the question of Land and NationState are relatively de-centered; though this varies, of course, with the hermeneutic employed especially in relation
3
Thispaper,then,attemptstoaugmentJewish-Christianexchangethrougharenewal oftheChristianCommunity’sown theology of Israel. Itdoessobyadvancinganexegesis andinterpretationofthethoughtofthecontemporarytheologian Robert Jenson. Jenson hasbeensochosenbothbecausehehasmadethetheologyofIsraelquestiononeofthe animatingconcernsofhisrecenttheologyandbecause,asIwillcontend,heactuallyand uniquelyoffersarigorousandplausibleproposalfortheconstructivedevelopmentofthis systematiclocus,onewhichmaybeviableforanecumenically-mindedbutstilldoctrinally serioustheologythatstillfaithfuladherestothetraditional-particularisticclaimsofthe ChristianGospel.
Inarecentarticle,Jensondescribestheurgencyofthisparticularquestionforthe Churchthusly:“IhaverealizedhowurgentlythechurchneedsaChristiantheologyof Judaism. Itisallverywelltorenouncesupersessionism,buthowthen should thechurch understandJudaism'scontinuingexistence?”Notonlyisthisaquestionofhistory,ofthe attempttoovercometheharmsthatreplacementtheology2 hasdonewhenithasbeen to the Book of Revelation and the systematic locus of eschatology. Some dispensationalists, for example, see the question of the Land as still absolutely crucial. The reality of the “People of God” in history, however, regardless of denomination, remains integrally crucial, and howthat category is interpreted in relation to the “Israel” enacted in Israel’s Scriptures, which Christianity builds upon. This is such that any Christian theology shouldhave an ineradicable locus on “Israel” and its meaning in relation to the Apostolic Witness category of the “Church”.
2 For the purposes of this paper, I assume that “replacement theology”, what has often been called now “supersessionism”, has been the predominant, default theology of Israel in Christianity through most of its history and in most of its forms. I will not here undertake a historical exploration of this assessment, but suffice it to say that it could be well documented as, in general outline, the operative theology in many cases when Christians have attempted to make theological sense out of continuing Judaism though the emergence of dispensationalist and premillenial eschatology complicates this standard narrative somewhat. For the general approach to the history of Christian theology in relation to world religions more generally, I have relied on: Jacques Dupuis, TowardaChristian TheologyofReligiousPluralism, updated ed. (Marynoll: Orbis Books, 2001). In the particular case of “replacement theology”, this particular theological model remained largely uncontested because, after the fourth century, the Church rarely gave substantial systematic reflection to its theology of Israel other than to say, most often, that Jews who did not explicitly join the Church stood condemned. Early Church theologians often spoke of this replacement theology in terms of the Church as the “True Israel”. To explore the history of replacement theology further, a fascinating study would be to look at the history of exegesis of Romans 9-11. I myself have refrained from using the term “supersessionism”, however, as this term has become so theologically imprecise not to mention so politically and ideologically freighted as to degenerate into a nebulous condemnation of almost any distinctive Christian claim. Replacementtheologycan be more precisely crystallized as follows: the theologoumenon it never really attained the status of doctrine that the relationship of the Church to Israel is one of simple, categorical replacement. The advent of the Church upon the Revelation of Jesus displaces Israel as the theo-communal locus for God’s People to gather in this world so also to excludethose Jews who do not enter the Church and to subsumethe canonical category “Israel” under the New Testament category “Church”. Although replacement theology does find potential scriptural warrant in the New Testament, and this must be seriously considered as I hope to do in the concluding
4
enactedinthepersecutionofJewsbyChristians,thisisfurtheraquestionofimportancefor the continued futureandvitalityofbothcommunities together. “Inthenextdecades,”as Jensonassessesthesituation,“powerfulhistoricalforceswilldriveJudaismandthechurch evermorecloselytogether,”andtheywillstandorfalltogether,sohethinks.3
Notwithstandinghowonereactstothisassessment,andhoweversomeonenow conceivesthisentity,“Israel”remainsanineradicablelocusforsystematicreflectiondueto itsroleinGod’sdealingswiththeworldforthosewhotakethebiblicalexperienceas normative. IwillexplorethedevelopmentofthissystematiclocusinJenson’stheology underthreerubricssuggestedbyhisunderstanding: 1) thestatusoftheOldTestamentas ScriptureinChristiantheology, 2) theidentificationoftheGodofIsraelinChristian theologyandthen,centrally, 3) theecclesiologicallocationofcontinuingJudaismin relationtotheChurchwithinIsrael InthisexplicationofJenson’sposition,Iarguethatit demonstratesthepotentialvibrancyofthisparticulartopictoaugmentourunderstand acrossvariousdoctrinallociandthatitpresentsanotherviableoptionforabiblically informedre-construaloftheroleofRabbinicJudaisminGod’sdealingswiththeworldin relationtootherprevalentpositionsinthehistoryofChristiantheology.
II: The Scriptures of Israel in Christian Theology
IfwearetodeterminehowChristiantheologyistoconstrueitsrelationbothto biblicalIsraeland,correlatively,tothepermutationofIsraelincontinuing,contemporary RabbinicJudaism,oneofthebasicquestionsisof Scripture, asthewitnesstowhatGodis doingwithhispeople. WhatChristianscallthe“OldTestament, ”4 asoneunitofits section, the movement of this paper suggests that it is notthe most appropriate global biblical interpretation and will contest its latter inferences in particular.
3 Robert W. Jenson, “Reversals: How My Mind Has Changed” ChristianCentury(20 April 2010).
4 The nomenclature is itself problematic here. What we call the body of literature that functions as normative scripture fully for Judaism and partially for Christians usually encodes a certain theology over against others, and there is probably no way to circumvent the problematic nature of terminology in every context. The traditional usage “Old Testament” has come under censure for its alleged “supersessionism”. It is presumed that “Old” must be pejorative, even though for the vast majority of Christian and indeed Western history, antiquity was in fact viewed quite oppositely as an esteemed characteristic. Furthermore, “Old Testament” does pose a legitimate problem in
5
Scriptures,endures,ofcourse,as sole unit,thatis,asScriptureassuch,asbible,forthe JewishCommunity. SomeoftherelativelyearlyfollowersofJesusencounteredthe possibilityofenvisioningsucharadical discontinuity betweentheRisenChristand antecedentIsraelthattheScripturesofIsraelcouldbetherebyrejectedintotalityinfavor oftheApostolicWritingsalone,orthesomeofthose. BecauseofJesus,thesebelievers thought,allthatwasneededwassomewritingsoftheApostlesaswitnesstotheGod therebydisclosed. Cipheredunderthelabelof Marcionism,theEarlyChurchasawhole decisivelyrejectedthisposition,asit,infact,underminestheverylogicandintelligibilityof Jesus’ministryandmission. Inthisway,itwasdecidedthatthe“NewTestament”doesnot function in absoluta per se,but only aspartofthelargerbook.
Jewish-Christian mutual learning, since, for the Synagogue, there is no such thing as a “New Testament” to make the other scriptures “Old”. To adopt the traditional Rabbinic usage of “Tanakh” in reference to the collection of Torah, Prophets and other Writings even though descriptive, would be, at this point, somewhat artificial for the Church and also seems to prohibit in advance the Christological reading of those texts. Biblical scholars have largely defaulted to the term “Hebrew Bible” as a descriptor, emphasizing the predominant language of the text. For the Synagogue, of course, this term is just redundant. Nor, in the strict sense, is this term correct, given the Aramaic portions of that literature; but this is taken to be a marginal point. Another problem with this term is that it is largely a scholarly construct, abstracted for the concerns of that enterprise, with little or no resonance in the originating, concrete, lived faith of either the Synagogue or the Church. Even so it could possibly be adopted, but the term is in fact also theologically pernicious: it preferences the scholarly reconstructed “historical context” over what Christianity has seen as the intrinsic translatabilityof its scriptures. Even if now, in our time, the study of the original Hebrew mustremain a fixed pole of the Church’s engagement of its Scriptures, for the Church these Scriptures do not strictly subsist in Hebrew. Those scriptures only become “Hebrew” for Christians during the Protestant Reformation and even after that into the period of modern biblical criticism, for those who had the privilege and ability to read the language and engage in translation for the regular believer. The actual bible of most of the Early Church was the Greek Septuagint, and the Scriptures in the West were, for the majority of Christianity for the majority of its history, the Latin of the Vulgate not to mention the translation now in Christian Mission of the scriptures into the multifarious vernacular languages of the world: English KJV interalia. This is in contrast to the strictArabic criterion of Qur’an, such that the Scriptures as such for the Ummah subsist only in the original recitations the language of heaven and not properly in translation: see further Lamin Sanneh, TranslatingtheMessage. Then there is also the plural or singular tension: “scripture” or “scriptures”. Indeed, if the book is scripture at all it functions, in some way, as a singular, coherent whole, but scholarship has tended towards the compositeness, even the fragmentation, of the text into ever more discrete and disparate units. That emphasis is appropriate in certain respects, but in other respects also cannibalistic on that text being “bible” at all. In attempted partial resolution, I have adopted here the term “Scriptures of Israel” for that body of literature and the term “Apostolic Witness” or “Apostolic Scriptures” for the Church’s distinctive body of literature that interprets the Scriptures of Israel by the Event of Jesus. Given the theological concerns I here present, the term “Scriptures of Israel” doesnotexcludethose writings either from being a distinctive set for the Synagogue orfrom being a partial, but constituting, set for the Church. Even though the predominant sensibilities suggest that we should once again remind ourselves of the coherent wholeness of “Scripture” I have opted for “Scriptures” in order to acknowledge its multivocality, and as patterned after and on the warrant of the biblical practice itself of referring to the “Scriptures” or “Writings” (γραφαὶ), paradigmatically Luke 24:32. “Apostolic” for the second body in that its authority, in terms of historical experience, derives precisely from its apostolicity, which is the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20), and its concretization of the Apostolic message about God’s deeds in Jesus, that is the Gospel. The novelty of this proposal may not find resonance in the actual life of the Church, though it is hoped that its scriptural moorings might perhaps recommend it. But, in the final analysis, I also find no sufficient prohibition to simply abiding with the tradition of the Church: “Old Testament”. As long as it is remembered that “Old” in this case is not pejorative but just means “historically prior”, “antecedent” or even “senior”, “foundational”, as well as the consideration that the Old “Testament” is not really a single covenant but the coherence of multiple “Testaments”, in relation to the culminating “Covenant” in Jesus.
6
ThattheScripturesofIsraelwerethusretaineddidnotforeclosethetemptationto forgetorneglecttheintertestamentalreciprocity. Inmanyways,itwaseasytotakethe ApostolicScripturesasbasicandthentoadaptIsrael’soriginalScripturestothem,totake theNewTestamentastheinterpretativecriterionoftheOld,butwithouttheother direction,withoutincorporatingtheworldoftheOldasthecriterionofplausibilityand faithfulnessoftheNew. Inoneway,thisiscertainlycorrect,ifindeedJesusisinfactthe culminatingself-disclosureofGod,thecenterofthewholescripturalcommunication. In anotherway,however,thisfailstoappreciatetheintegrityoftheactualhistorical developmentanditsdramatic-experientialcoherence. Anditishere,Jensonsuggests,as onefacetofourtheologyofIsrael,thatweneedtorecapture thinking the other way,thatis, thinkingfromIsrael’sScriptures to theApostolicWitness. HerecontemporaryJudaismhas thepotentialtoaugmenttheChurch’sreadingofitsownscripturesbyrecallingtheir originalintegrityinthismode.
ForJenson,thisinsightfunctionsdoctrinallyintherecognitionthatasthe norma non normata ofourtheologicaljudgment,“partsofScriptureare‘Scripture’indifferent ways.”Hearguesthatweneedtorecapturethe mode bywhichtheScripturesofIsrael functionsarchitectonicallyfortheChurchinawaythatisuniquetothem. “TheNew Testamentthroughout,”Jensonclaims,“demonstratesapostolicdependenceontheholy bookofJudaism,preciselyas book…”Assuchthatbook constitutes theChurchinawaythat isdifferentfromtheApostolicWitness,therecognitionofwhichemergesfromthelifeand missionoftheChurchasinspiredconfirmationoftheEventwhichinauguratesits,namely Jesus’life,ministry,crucifixionandresurrection. “ThusthecanonofIsrael’sScriptureisfor thechurchasheergiven.”Andso,“Israel’sbookisanunderivableconditionforthe existenceof[theChurch].”Thisismoreforcefulthana“reception”ofIsrael’sbookbythe Church. And,indeed,theChurchdidnot“appropriate”or“adopt”thatbookatall. Forthat bookitselfisinextricablywovenintothedisciplesownencounterandrelationwithJesus. SoJensonargues:“Itisperhapsnotstrictlycorrecteventosaythatthechurch‘received’ Israel’sScripture,sincethisscripturewasantecedentlyconstitutivefortheapostles’
7
relationtotheirLordandsofortheexistenceofthechurch.”5 AsJensonwillputitinhis pithyway,“TheOldTestamentwasScripturefortheapostlesanddisciplesbeforethey wereapostlesanddisciples.”TheseScripturesare“just there,asafactantecedenttoits[the Church’s]existenceandfoundationalforitsself-understanding.”6
Thetheologicalcorollarytothisinsight,asJensonwilladvocateitinhisadventurous andprovocativeway,isthatonedirectionfortheChurch’sthoughtmustbewhetherthe claimsaboutJesusarethemselvesauthenticandplausiblepossibilities to have emerged out of Israel’s Scripture:“Indeed,thequestionisnotwhetherthechurchhasthiscanon[OT]but whetherthiscanonacknowledgesthechurch:MayIsrael’sholybookbesoread,without violencetoitscoherenceandhistoricalactuality,astoacceptJesus’Resurrectionandthe appearanceofthechurchasitsowndenouement?”7 ThisisJenson’sdoctrinalproposalfor howscripturalinterpretationistofunctionintheChurch. Inhisconceptualization, theology istheChurch’sattempttospeakthegospelfaithfullyinanewsituation. 8 To undertakethisenterprise,“theprimarydocumentarycontrolofoureffortisthatour attempttospeakthegospelbethesameinterpretiveact[theApostles]performed:thatwe interpretwhathappenedwithJesusbyIsrael’sBibleandIsrael’sBiblebywhathappened withJesus.”9
TheinferencethatIdrawfromthis,whichJensondoesnotthematize,eventhough hisexplicitaccountalreadyimpliesacertainrelationtoIsrael,isthattheChurchhasthe opportunitytodevelopitsrelationtocontemporaryJudaismbyare-engagedstudyof Israel’sbook together. Inonesense,toanticipatethehistorico-theologicalhermeneuticof parallelismtobeexploredsubsequently,therelationbetweenChristianityandJudaism
5 Robert W. Jenson, SystematicTheology, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997-1999), I: TheTriune God, 30.
6 Robert W. Jenson, CanonandCreed, Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010), 14, 20.
7 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 30.
8 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 11-22, for his more elaborated understanding of what theology is.
9 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 30.
8
alongoneaxisisadisputebetweenthosewhoclaimtobeGod’sPeopleaboutwhetherthe ApostolicWitnessorMishna-Talmudaremorefaithfulandplausibleinterpretationsof Israel’sBibleinthesituationaftertheclaimaboutJesusandafterthedestructionofthe Temple. IftheChurchcannotengageinstudyofIsrael’sScriptureswiththeRabbisand showhowwhathappenedwithJesusisatleastapossible,faithfulinterpretationofthat Scripture,thenithasforfeitedonecomponentofitsmission. Thepracticeofsuch,itishere suggested,shouldbecomeoneconstantfeatureoftheChurch’sLife,whereandifithasnot been. Andthisitselfisthemostfruitfulproposalforwhathasbeencalled“Jewish-Christian dialogue”or“learning”.
Thisproposalcouldbeeasilymisunderstood. Sothecautionshouldbeimmediately mentionedthatthisproposaldoesnotsimplycapitulatetocontemporaryJudaism’sclaim nordoesitimplyarecognitionthattheChurchissomehowanalienimpositiononIsrael’s Scriptures. Tosuch,Jensonmakesthefollowingpoint:
Atthesametime,thereisalsonoreasonforthechurchtothinkthatcontemporary JudaismhasapriorrighttotheuseorinterpretationoftheOldTestament. Someof ourdifficultyarisesfromthesuppositionthatthechurchonce‘appropriated’or ‘adopted’Israel’sScriptures;sincetheoriginofthechurchdependedonthese Scriptures,suchaneventcanneverhavehappened. Moreover,sincewhatisnow calledJudaismandthechurchappearedsimultaneouslywithinIsrael,neithercan haveapriorclaim;evenfromastrictlyhistoricalpointofview,theoneisas immediateanddirectacontinuationofcanonicalIsraelastheother 10
Againthereistheinterpretivemodelofparallelism,whichre-orientsmuchofthe discussion. “RabbinicJudaismandthechurchhaveequalandparallelclaimstoobeythe Tanakh/OldTestamentasscripture. NeitherisadirectcontinuationofoldIsrael. Inthe longrun,eachcouldobeyoldIsrael’sscriptureonlybyaddingasecondvolume:therabbis addedtheMishna,andtheChristianstheNewTestament.”11 Ifthisisacknowledged,then mutualJewish-Christianlearninghasananimatingtasktoorientanddirectitsproceedings, insteadofmerelyupholding“dialogue”assomekindofnebulousendinitself.
10 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 30, note 23.
11 Robert W. Jenson, Ezekiel, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2009), 25, note 26.
9
NordoesthisconsiderationforeclosetheChristologicalexegesisoftheso-called plainsenseofIsrael’sScripture,asalatentfeatureofthattext. Indeedinhisowntwo commentariesonbooksofIsrael’sScripture,Jensonhasproceededwiththeintentionthat, “exegesisoftheOldTestamentmightcalluppointsofChristiandoctrine”andthat “ChristiandoctrineshouldshapeinterpretationofOldTestamentpassages”eventhoughhe isawarethatthisprocedure,“offendsthemodernexegeticalacademy’schiefdogma”and thatlatter“offendsiteverymoredeeply.”12 TheChurchmustliveouttheintegrityofits claimtohavebeenorientedtotheunderstandingofIsrael’sScripturesbyJesushimselfand bytheinspiredWitnesstoJesus’life,ministry,crucifixionandresurrectioninitsown Scriptures. ThiswayofapproachingtheScriptures,nevertheless,facilitatesanarenafor mutuallearningandaugmentationbetweentheChurchandcontemporaryJudaism.
III: Israel and the Identification of the Christian God
AnotherwaytoconsiderIsraelinChristiantheologyisby the identification of its God:theAbbatowhomJesuscallsoutispreciselytheGod of Israel. Theidentificationof GodhasbeenoneoftheconstantconcernsofJenson’stheologythroughoutitsdiachronic development. Fromhisperspective,thegreatreligiousquestionofhumanityremainsnot whetherGodis perhapsnotevenanactuallyintelligibleoneifoneunderstandswhatthe semanticsignifierGodattemptstoconvey butrather:“which isGod?” Whatisthetrue andauthenticwaytounderstandingwhatthewordattemptstoconvey? FollowingLuther andresonatewithTillich,Jensonclaimstheultimatequestionis what functionsasultimate realityorendowscoherentmeaning,orchaos,forone’slife,regardlessofhowthatreality isthenconstruedorimplemented:asspiritorasmatter,incoherentlyorcoherently, personallyornon-personally.13 Whatfunctionsastheculminatingfocusofone’sworldview
12 Jenson, Ezekiel, 25; also Robert W. Jenson, SongofSongs, Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005).
13 See, for example: Robert W. Jenson, StoryandPromise:ABriefTheologyoftheGospelAboutJesus(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973), 5-6; Robert W. Jenson, VisibleWords:TheInterpretationandPracticeofChristianSacraments [1978], 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 29-32; Robert W. Jenson, TheTriuneIdentity:GodAccordingto theGospel(Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1983), 1-10; Robert W. Jenson, ALargeCatechism, 2nd ed. (Delhi:
10
or,atleast,one’swayofbeingintheworld? Whatreallycapturesone’sheartasfinally meaningful? Whateverthatis,thatisone’sGod. Andtherealreligiousquestionthen includesaninescapablyelementofnormativity:what should capturepeopleasfinally meaningfulinthisway? Theanswerofsomeinthelate-modernsituation,forexample, maybethat only matterandenergyaretheReal,andthatweshouldliveassuch,andcease askingthequestionsofmeaningandvalue. Therein,theywouldhavepreciselyidentified their God,andtheirtheologywouldthenconsisteitherinthatsinglepropositionand nothingmoreorintheentirescopeofnaturalscientificandeconomicknowledgeand whateveranimationthatgivestotheirlives,dependingontheparticulardirectionof thought.
Oneofthebasicquestionsofanytheology,consequently,is whether thepositedGod isabletobeidentified,orbeyondanysuchidentificationincreaturelycategories,and how thisisso. Does“God”relateornotrelatetowhatelseexists? ForChristiantheology,asit explicatesfaithinthe Gospel,Godisthetypeofrealitywhichcanbeintended,towhichwe candirectourattention,withwhomwecancommune personalreality 14 Thisis primarilysobecauseGodisidentifiedastheAgentorMeaningofEventsintheworld’s experienceanditshistory. JensoncrystallizesitsprimalidentificationofGodasfollows: “ChristiantalkofGodintendsaspecificreality,thatisidentifiedbytheapostlesasthe agentofJesus’Resurrection….”15 Godisprimallywhateverthattranscendencewas towardswhichJesustheNazarenecalledoutintheSpirit,“Abba,Father”;Godisthatreality intowhichheinvitesusintoconversation,fellowshipandobedience,andthatreality whosevindicationofthisinvitationisgivenbyraisingJesusfromthedead.
American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, 1999), 7-8; also then: Paul Tillich, DynamicsofFaith(New York: Harper & Row, 1958), 1-4, though Jenson, subsequently, uses this insight to very different purposes than Tillich.
14 My thanks to Prof. John Jefferson Davis for the insight phrased this way: for the Christian, God may be more that personal, in the scholastic understanding analogicallypersonal, but is certainly not less than personal, that is fundamentally non-relatable.
15 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 42.
11
ImmediatelyitmustbeaddedforJenson,however,thattheidentificationofGodby Jesus’MissionandastheagentofJesus’Resurrectiondoesnotrepresentadiscreteevent. Itscoherencyisunderstoodasoccurringintheworldandexperience of Israel. Godisnota generic x atthetimeofJesus,butratherthe same onewhodiscloseshisidentityasthe“I am[willbe]”,asYHWH,theGodofIsrael,herExodus,hersubsequentnational-culticlife and,chiefly,asconstitutedbytheCovenantsandPromisesofGodwiththeCommunity whomhegathers. Jesusistheself-communicationandself-identificationincreaturely realityof this Godand not another. Soareturnismade,insofarasweareableto authenticallyidentifyGod,tothefundamentalconnectionwiththeScripturesofIsrael, whichdocumenttheEventsofthisidentification. “ItistheGodofIsraelwhomJesuscalled Fatherandtowhomthediscipleswantedtopray”,clarifiesJenson.16
Thisconfessionappearselementaryenough. And,forJenson,theplaceto start with theidentificationofGodisnotdeterminative. IftheChurch,forthemostpart,inaugurates itsconfessionandwitnesstotheGospelwiththeidentificationofGodwithJesusandthe disciples’claimabouthim,sofarsogood;thatistheculminatingmomentofGod’scongress withthecreation. Acriticalproblemdoesarise,however,whentheChurch fails to continuespeakingitsGospelbytakingitbackthroughtheexperienceofIsrael,andso eitherbyneglectorsuperficialityuntetherstheclimacticidentificationofGodinJesusfrom God’sauthenticidentificationintheexperienceofIsrael. “Sofarasmerelogicgoes,our discussioncouldpickupthechainbyanylink[oftheidentificationofGod],”claimsJenson, “solongaswethenwentroundthefullcircle.”17
Jenson,though,beginshisownsystematicaccountoftheTriuneGod,“with confessionoftheGodofIsrael,”preciselybecause,inhisjudgment,theChurchsooften continuestoneglecttogoroundthefullcircle:“inviewofthepredominantlygentile church’sperennialtemptationtoevade”anchoringitsidentificationofGodinIsrael. Inthe historicalexperienceoftheChurch,“Thetemptationwasearlyovercomedogmatically,
16 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 42.
17 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 42.
12
withtherejectionofMarcion”. ButtheneglectofIsraelinheridentificationofGod,in Jenson’sreadingofthehistory,“remainsthechurch’smostregularoccasionofapostasy.”18 Thisisanassessmentwithwhichitisdifficulttodispute,givenitsmanifestationinthe Church’softentortuousandoppressivelegacyofrelationstotheSynagogueoverits history.
ForJenson,moreover,thisisnotonlyamatteroftheunholypersecutionoftheJews bytheChurch,butalsoamatteroftheforfeitoftheChurch’sownintegrityandauthenticity totheGodoftheGospel:“Whenthechurchhasfallentoit,evenpartiallyorambiguously, theresulthasbeenthemerereplacementofherGodbysomenoumenofthemomentarily surroundingreligiousculture;evenMarcionwhowantedtoproclaimaGodaltogether unknownuntilheappearedinJesus,infactproducedonlyausualpieceoflate-antique mythology”19 AtworkhereisJenson’sownnarrativeabouttheformationofEarly ChristiantheologyinthecrucibleoftheGreco-Romanworldandtheissueoftherelationof HellenisticmetaphysicalcategoriestotheexplicationoftheChurch’stheology.
WhileJensondoesnotsuccumbtothenaïvetéofpositinganarrativeofan uncomplicated,linearprocessofthecorruptionofbiblicalcategoriesbyGreek,allegedly “static”,metaphysicaltermsandcategories,assomeonelikeAdolfvonHarnackmighthave done,forexample. Inthat,hedoesrecognizeambivalentlytheappropriatenessofreason andthebenefitofthetoolsthatGreekthoughtbroughttotheChurch’sdiscourse,whilehe alsoacknowledgesthatitisinevitablethattheChurch’stheologyoccursinreciprocal “conversationwithsomesurroundingreligiousculture”,onethatisnotjustactiveor criticalbutalsoreceptiveandappreciative,thatunearths,asitwere,the logou spermatikoi andthe preparatio evangelicae intruthwherevertheologyencountersit.20 Nevertheless, Jensonenvisionshisownsystematictheology,inonerespect,asa“revisionary
18 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 42.
19 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 43.
20 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: ix.
13
metaphysics,aimedatallowingonetosaythingsaboutGodthatscripturesseemsto require[accordingtohisreading]butthatinheritedmetaphysics[thatis,classical metaphysics]inhibits.”21
Jenson,eitherway,thinksthattheconstrualofEternityassheernon-temporalityis unfaithfultothewaytheGodofIsraelself-discloses.22 Rather,“TheTrueGodisnoteternal becausehelackstime,butbecausehetakestime…ThebiblicalGod’seternityishis temporalinfinity”inthattemporally“he overcomes allboundaries.”Or,again,more radically,heargues,“TheeternityofIsrael’sGodishisfaithfulness. Heisnoteternalinthat hesecureshimselffromtime,butinthatheisfaithfultohiscommitmentswithintime. At thegreatturning,Israel’sGodiseternalinthatheisfaithfultothedeath,andthenyetagain faithful.”23 ThemethodologicalpointthatJensonwantstomakeintheseclaimsisthat whentheidentificationofGod in Israel isneglected,ourwaysofrelatingtoGodareeasily andreadilyshiftedintotheidiomatic-metaphysicalassumptionsofthesurrounding culture,ashethinkshappenedinthiscase. ItisarguablewhetherJensonhasnotbeen hinderedherebytheossificationofhisnarrativeabouttheinfiltrationofGreek metaphysicalcategoriesintothethinkingoftheChurch. ButthepointremainsthatifGod istrulyandauthenticallyself-identifiedbytheScripturesofIsrael,andjustsobythesaving
21 Robert W. Jenson, “Response to Watson and Hunsinger” ScottishJournalofTheology, 55:2 (2002): 225-232, 230.
22 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 222: Another provocative example of what Jenson sees as the tension between the biblical account and inherited metaphysics is the radical personality of God which usually gets blunted by metaphysical caveats: “…the one God is a person…The life of any person is both one event and many events. Therefore, to grasp myself as a whole, I must grasp the mutual dramatic coherence of the events of my life…I must grasp the faithfulness of each of my acts and sufferings to all the rest. But as a creature, I do not have this faithfulness in myself; I have it only in the coherence of God’s intention for me. Moreover, as a fallen creature I actively fight against dependence on God and so against my own coherence with myself. Thus in daily experience I am threatened by absurdity, by disintegration of my life into a mere pointless sequence of happenings…That we take God’s personality seriously is vital to the religious life demanded by the gospel. The Bible’s language about God is drastically personal: he changes his mind and reacts to external events, he makes threats and repents of them, he makes promises and tricks us by how he fulfills them. If we understand this language as fundamentally inappropriate, as ‘anthropomorphic,’ we do not know the biblical God. Persons do all these things, precisely to be personal, and in that the true God is personal they are ontological perfections, not deficiencies…Therefore, that God listens to us and responds to us, far from being a condescension, is the very way he is faithful to himself. God is not God in spite of changing his mind, in spite of answering prayer or failing to do so; he is God because he does and can do such things wholeheartedly. Operatively: unabashed petitionary prayer is the one decisively appropriate creaturely act over against the true God.” See also note 13 above.
23 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 217, 216, emphasis original.
14
EventsofGodinIsrael’sexperienceasa dramatis persona,asapartnerinCovenantand Promise,thentoneglecttheserealitieswillfundamentallyimpoverishandhinderthe relationoftheChurchtoherGod. Asaresult,whattheChurchattemptstocall“God”will oftenbesomekindofsubstituteonofferfromsomepredominantculture.
InexplicatingtheidentificationofGodbytheScripturesofIsraelandinIsrael’s experienceofconstitution,exodus,redemption,exile,messianichope,Jensonreemphasizessomeparticularlysalientfeaturesofthisexperience. Fundamentaltothe identificationofGodinIsrael,JensonarguesdrawingespeciallyfromVonRad,istheevent ofExodus,astheoccurrenceofGodastheOnewhoworksinhistory:“Inherownselfunderstanding,IsraelhadbeencreatedbythedeliveranceofbondworkersfromEgyptand byeventsoftheirconsequentmigrationthroughSinaiintoCanaan.”24 Forthisreason, God’sself-identificationforChristiansisboundtotheeventsofhistory,theirmeaningand theirsignificance:“Israel’sandthechurch’sGodisthusidentifiedbyspecifictemporal actionsandisknownwithincertaintemporalcommunitiesbypersonalnamesand identifyingdescriptionstherebyprovided”ThisisnottosaythatGodcouldnothave potentiallyself-disclosedinanotherway,asifGodweresubjecttotheeventsofhistoryby somemetaphysicalnecessity. ButitistosaythatfortheChristianunderstanding,God has soself-disclosed truly and authentically,insofarasthehistoricalworldascreationis potentiallytransparenttoGod’spresenceasCreator. InJenson’sassessment,atcritical pointswheretheidentificationofGodbyIsraelhasbeenneglected,theconsequencehas beenanabstractionfromthesespecific,temporalactions:“NordoesScripturecontain permissiontotranscendtheserelationsatanyheightofspiritualexperience,eventhough cravingtoriseabovesuchtemporaland‘limiting’nodesofexperienceisendemicin religion”25
Thisauthenticidentifiabilitybyparticulareventsinhistoryischaracteristicof Israel’s,andsotheChurch’s,God. AndJensonthinksisoneoftherelativelydistinguishing
24 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 43.
25 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 46.
15
featuresofJewish-Christianfaithoveragainstmostotherreligiousmentalities. “Itisitselfa particularityofIsrael’sandthechurch’sGodthathesoinsistsuponhisparticularity,a componentofhisidentitythathecanbedefinitelyidentified”,saysJenson. Whereas,by contrast,“Thestandardreligiousattitudeisthattheprincipleofindividuation,whateverit maybe,cannotfinallyapplytodeity. Inthecaseofnormalreligions,suchtheologyis merelyfaithfultoits lex orandi. Thegodshaveingeneralnofinalstakeintheirindividual identitiesandwillarrangethemtosuitourreligiousneeds.”26
Intheheightordepthofmostotherspiritualexperience,allsuchnames,concepts, predicates,particulareventsareseenasdispensable,andevenperhapsattackedasa penultimatelyidolatrousresidueofwhatistrulybeyondanysuchdifferentiationor undifferentiation. Suchanapproachreproachesallaestheticandnarrativalsingularitiesas ultimatelymisleading,andattemptstoabolishallcontourdowntothesamelevelof symbolicity,whichintheend,drivestowardthehomogenousoceanofeschatological uniformitythatistheReal. Ofcourse,ashasbeennotednowforsometime, particularity seemstobewhatisespeciallyscandaloustothecurrent,dominant,pluralisticmentality Godcannot actually, really beaboutExodusorIsraelorProphetorthisenigmaticJesus fromNazareth,can it? Certainlytheseallgesturetowardsalargerrealitythattranscends them,dotheynot? Inthissensibility,“Decliningmodernityisinfullaccordwithantiquity onthisprinciple.”27
Jensonseekstounderminewhatheseesasthecurrent,standardreligiousmentality inhisintentionallyprovocativeaccountofGod’sattributes:“IntheScriptures,onanexact otherhand,itisfirstamongtheLord’sattributesthatheis‘a jealous God.’Heneither shareshisnamenorisaddressedbyanaccumulationofotherdeities’names. ForJesusas fortheDeuteronomist,‘thefirstandgreatestcommandment’islovespecificallyto‘JHVW, yourGod.’”Thisisnotajealouslyoffearorinsecurityorcapriciousness,ofcourse,as
26 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 47.
27 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 47.
16
mostlyinthehumancasejealouslyevidencessuch. Butitisajealouslyofauthentic identity. “TheLordisjealous”,Jensonexplainsfurther,“becauseheistrulyidentifiedby thetemporaleventsofExodusandResurrection.”28 Toattempttoidentifyhiminanother way,therefore,representstheattempttooverthrowGod’sownfreeandloving presentationofhimselftotheworld,tosaythat,fromthehumanperspective,itmustbe falseorinsufficient;itistheattemptbythecreaturetore-forgeGod’sidentityandsoto claimthelastandfinalauthorityoverGod.
Thisrebellionisreallyamisunderstandingofwhatitistobecreature,arevolt againsttherealityofhistoricalandworldlybeingassuchinsofarasitpresentsitselfasflux, asdissolution,asthecomingandgoingofallthings. Iftheworldanditshistory is the real theater forGod’sGlory,thatGodcreatedtocommunicatehisGlory, identification must be so: “Intime,eachthingmustindeedbe‘itselfandnotanother’ornotbeatall;temporal entitiesmustbejealousoftheiridentitiesorcease.”29 Undertheconditionsofthisworld,if IameverythingIamnothing. Identityispossessedpreciselyinrelationtothewhole complexandentiretyofthatwhichalsoexists, a, b, c …, sothatoneentityisthereality thatitispreciselybecauseitis not anyotherreality. Intheworldandintime,itisthusonly inrelationtothewholecomplexofrealitythatanyparticularentitypresentsitselfwithan interiorobjectivitythatmakesita this SoifGodisgoingtobetheGodwhoidentifies himselfin(Exodus)andby(Jesus)creaturelyrealities,thismustentailjealously;forGod willbeidentifiedasathisinrelationtothat. Therewillbeparticularity. (Wedonothave tothinkofthisidentity,asdidtheheightofmodernity,asthediscrete,punctilliar,mutually exclusivekindoflogicalvariables:xandnot-x. Identitycertainlycanbemore appropriatelyconceivedintermsofafield,sothatthereisapotentialintrinsicrelation betweenthe“I”andthe“Thou”everywithinthesphereoftheself. Butthereis definiteness,andnotasheeramorphousness,nonetheless).
28 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 47.
29 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 47.
17
EitherthatorGodreallyhasnoinvestmentincreaturelyreality. “Usualgods,”of genericreligion,Jensoncontinues,“carelittlefortheiridentitiesjustbecausetheyarenot personallyinvestedintime;indeed,theirdeityconsistsintheirimmunitytotime,from whichdevoteeshopetheymayrescueusalso. Iftheirworshipisinitiallyenabledby apparentlyidentifyingnamesanddescriptions,thesearetranscendedathigherlevelsof spiritualprocessinwhichthebondsoftimeloosen astherewith,ofcourse,is transcendedalsotheirpartnershipinpersonaldiscourse.”Tothis,Jensoncontrasts fundamentally,“NotsotheGodofScripture”,thatis,notsotheGodtrulyidentifiedbyand inIsrael.30 ItisonlywhentheChurchuntethersitselffromitsconnectiontoIsraelthatit beginstomeanderdownthesamepathoftranscendingnames,conceptsanddescriptions.
OnebenefitofarenewedtheologyofIsrael,therefore,istostimulatetheChurch’s recollection,tocatalyzefaithfulnesstoitsidentificationofGod,toitscontour,itsnarratival andaestheticsingularitiesastheseembodytrueself-disclosuresofGod. Totruly understandthisself-disclosureofGod,however,wemustconsideritscharactermorefully. ForGod’strueandauthenticself-identificationisnotjustamatterofthepast,saysJenson. Thatwouldbeaquestformythicoriginsorimmunitytotimethatstandardreligionseeks. Thisidentificationisamatteralso,morefundamentally,perhaps,ofthefuture,oftheEnd towhichGoddrawsthehistoryinwhichhehasanticipatedhisownidentity. SoJenson takesthebasiceschatologicalturnofsomeotherrecenttheology.
IfExodustrulyidentifiestheGodofIsrael,thecorrelativetemptationissimple deferencetothepastasitis. AsJensonelaboratesinhisearlycritiqueof“religion”asa resultofhisworkonBarth:“Israel’slifehadbeenbuiltupontrustinwhatGod had done. Hehadbroughtthem‘outofthelandofEgypt’;ofagroupofwanderingtribeshehadmade anationwithitshomeland. Asaresultofwhat had happenedtherewas now astable situationwithinwhichlifehadmeaning. Howevergreatthedifferencemaybebetweenlife thusbasedonapasteventintime,andonebasedonaneventintheonce-upon-a-timeof eternity,andsobetweenthefaithofoldIsraelandthemythicnature-religionofother
30 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 47.
18
31
ancientpeoples,thisfundamentalpatternwasthesameforboth:thegreatsavingchangeis past,salvationnowliesinthecontinuanceoftheorderthencreated.”
Inthiscase,thegreatthreattothatunderstandinginIsrael’sownexperiencewas theExile. TheExilerepresentedthepotentialfalsificationoftheLord’sPromises. Perhaps thatGodofAbraham,IsaacandJacob,oftheExodusfromEgyptand Torah,wasnotreally Godafterall? ItseemssomeinIsraeltookthatpath,saysJenson:“Whenthatorder collapsedintheExile,somedespairedoftheirGod,someturnedtodesperaterestorations, andmostnodoubttriedtogoonasbefore.”But,also,therewerethosewereinterpreted theeventsofExilepreciselyincontinuitywiththeeventsofExodus. Thesewerethe prophets:“theprophetstookthecollapseofthepastastheactoftheveryGodwhose revelationthatpasthadbeen. Inhisnametheypreachedthattherewasnomoresalvation intheoldactsofGod,nohopeinclingingtowhatalreadywas. Overagainstthepast,and thepresentorderofmeaningsithadcreated,Israelwaslostandnotsaved. Theoldactsof Godwerebutpropheciesofhistruerealityinthefuture.”InthecrucibleofExile:“Thefaith ofIsraelwastobecomeadifferentthing:nolongertrustinwhathadbeen,buthopein whatwouldbe.”32 Thisinsightcanbeinterpretedinradicaldisjunction,almostsuchthat theadventdemolisheswhathadprecededit(forJenson:Bultmannisanexample),and Jensonearlyon almost succumbstothistemptation. Inthiscase,thereislosttheactual anticipation,thepossibilitytolivebyforetastedcontentofwhatistocome.
Sohow,then,canweproperlyidentifyGodinafaiththatlookstothefuturebutthat alsorememberstheauthenticdisclosureineventsofthepast? Aspartofadevelopmentof histheologyofIsrael,JensonwillsaythattotaketheidentityoftheGodoftheChurchas disclosedinthehistoryofIsraelseriously,weshouldconstrueGod’sidentityas dramatic coherence. GodistheGodwhoheisinrelationtothecreationbybeingfaithfultohimself inthevaryingcircumstancesandvicissitudesofhistory. SoJensonsummarizes:“The
31 Robert W. Jenson, GodAfterGod:TheGodofthePastandtheGodoftheFutureAsSeenintheWorkofKarl Barth(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merill, 1969), 17.
32 Jenson, GodAfterGod, 17.
19
propositionthatGod’sself-identityliesindramaticcoherenceisinanycasemandatoryfor thosewhowishtoworshipthebiblicalGod. ForifwecannotconstruethebiblicalGod’s self-identityinthisway,thenwecannotconstrueitatall;thenwedonotknowanyone suchrealityasthebiblicalGod. Otherwisethandramatically,theBible’stheological descriptions,accountsofdivineaction,andworshipfulinvocationsaretoomutually conflictedtosuggestreferraltoasamesomeone.”33
ThattheLord’sidentityisoneofdramaticcoherenceornotatallisevident,Jenson argues,fromtheveryvicissitudesofthehistoricalexperienceofIsrael. Ifwearetosaythat theGodwhomakesspecificPromisetoAbraham,whoalsoCovenantedwiththewhole creationinAdamandNoah,whobringshispeopleoutofEgyptinExodusunderMoses, whogivesthemInstruction-Torah,toestablishthemintheLand,tobuildtheTemple,only thentoleadthemoutfromtheLandintoExile,andsoon…downtoJesus,ifwearetosay thatthisistheselfsameGod,thatselfsamenessmustbeinthecoherencethatbelongsto historicalexperience,whichhasitsresolutioninanEnd. SoJensonsaysofIsrael’sfaith, whichinhistheologyofIsrael,isthendeterminativeforthelegitimacyandplausibilityof thefaithoftheChurch:“EvenIsrael’sabilitytoconceiveacontinuityofherownhistory throughthediscontinuitiesofherfate,and,forcenturies,tointerpretandre-interpretthat historytheologicallytoproducetheScripturethechurchreceived,didnotresultfrom continuousabilitytosynthesizethereligiousandconceptualdeposittodate,butdepended onherantecedentandrepeatedlyrewonconvictionthat…[theLord]inhispersonal identityhadbeenandwouldbetheprotagonistofherdoingsandsufferings,however apparentlydiscontinuous.”Inthisway,“thescripturalnarrativeisthusitselfIsrael’ssole construaloftheLord’sself-identity”andinthatnarrative,“Godisidentified with Israelin thatheisidentified as aparticipantIsrael’sstorywithhim.”34 Onlyinthisway,asaninsight continuallyre-achievedinareturntoIsrael’sExperience,cantheChristianidentificationof
33 Jenson, SystematicTheology, I: 64.
34 Jenson, SystematicTheology,I: 64, 77.
20
GodbyfaithfultoitsinheritanceofAncientIsraelandherScriptures,asitmustbeforitto beauthenticallyplausibleatall
IV: The Roles of Jews and Christians as God’s People
Atlonglast,havingalreadyover-extendedthereader’sduepatience after exploringIsrael’sScripturesandIsrael’sidentificationofGodinChristiantheology, accordingtoJenson’srendition Icometothecrucialquestionofacontemporarytheology ofIsrael:howdoestheChurchrelatetoitsfellow,butinsomewaysdivergent,interpreter oftheheritageofAncientIsraelincontinuingRabbinicJudaism. HowdoestheChurch relatetothoseJewswhodonotexplicitlyjointheChurchofJewsandGentiles? The previoussectionshaveexploredmoretraditionallociofChristiantheology,onlyfroma newperspective,asIhaveattemptedtoshowthepotentialscopeandvibrancyofa renewedtheologyofIsrael. Butherewemustengagethepressingcontemporaryquestion oftherelationoftheChurchandtheRabbinicJewishcommunityandtheirstatusasPeople ofGod,theirrespectiverolesinGod’sdramainhistory. ItisonthisquestionthatJenson’s renewedtheologyofIsraelprobablymostradicallychallengestheChristianCommunityto re-understanditsowntheo-communalidentityinrelationtocontinuingJudaism.
Asafirstmatter,itwillbehelpfultoexplorewhatJensonmeansbythe Church,and howthisdiscussionfindsitsplaceinhismoregeneralaccountofecclesiology. Strictly speaking,inJenson’sunderstanding,theResurrectionofJesusintheSpiritfoundsthe Churchasitsconstitutingevent Ofcourse,ifthiswastohavebeenthecase,thenitisalso thecasethatJesus’Missioninthegathering,formationandsendingofdisciplesanticipates theemergenceoftheChurchinsomeway contrarytothecurrent,fashionable,scholarly trendtodichotomizebetweenthe“Kingdom”thatJesuspreachedandthe“Church”that came. Nevertheless,asJensonunderstandsittheo-historically:“Bluntlystated,God institutesthechurchbynotlettingJesus’ResurrectionbeitselftheEnd,byappointingthe ‘delayoftheParousia.’”35 The“time”oftheChurch,therefore,iswhatisopenedupbetween theResurrectionastheanticipationoftheKingdomandthefinalconsummationofthe
35 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: TheWorksofGod, 170.
21
Kingdomitself,duringwhichtimetheChurchcarriesonitsmandateofspeakingandliving theGospel,ofbaptizingandcommuningandworshipping,oflovingandserving
Now,the ecclesia entity,the“Church”,ofwhichtheApostolicWitnessspeaks,but whichalsoisthecontextforitsspeech,emergesastheself-understandingofthisnew communitythatlivesbyconfessingJesusasIsrael’sMessiah,bystudyingtheScripturesto soconfess,andbylivingoutthediscipleshipofitsteacherinthemeantime. Immediately thequestionarises,however,whatrelationthisnewentity“Church”hasinthebiblical storyofGodwithhisPeopletotheentity“Israel”,whoistheantecedentpartnerofGodin instructionandworshipandcovenantandpromise eitherintheformoftheprophetic “remnant”orasawhole. ThisquestionshouldbeonewithwhichtheChurchshouldhave continuallygrappledinitstheology. Thefactthatithasnotdonesoforthelargepart dispensationalisttheologyandcovenantaltheologyareexceptions butthatmuchof ChristiantheologyhasoverlookeditslocusonIsraelisitselfindicativeofanabiding problem. Thesimple,naïveanduncriticaldisplacementofIsraelfromitsbiblicalstatusas God’speoplehasledtomonumentallydisastroushistoricalconsequencesforIsrael,the ChurchandtheWorld somerecentauthorshaveattemptedtoconnectiteventothe formationoftheentiremodernracialimaginationandcolonialworldsystemwithallits calamities.36 ItisinnavigatingthecurrentrelationbetweenIsraelandtheChurchthat JensonseekstoproposesomedecisivedevelopmentsinthetheologyofIsraelforthe considerationoftheChurch.
Firstofall,thetimeoftheChurchshouldmanifestIsrael’sPromises. Now,inthe developmentofmessianicexpectationduringtheSecondTempleperiod,neitherthe crucifixionnortheresurrectionofanindividual,inthemidstofhistory,wereanticipatedin associationwiththeMessianicEvents. Thisiswhythecross,butalsotheindividual inaugurativeresurrectionofJesus,wasa“stumblingblock”toJewsthenand,fromthe
36 See especially: J. Kameron Carter, Race:ATheologicalAccount(New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); Willie James Jennings, TheChristianImagination:TheologyandtheOriginsofRace(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010). Carter, especially, attempts to demonstrate and articulate how intimately interwoven the Judenfragewas with the Rasenfragein the development of modern nation states and their undergirding ideologies.
22
perspectiveofmostcontemporaryRabbinicJudaism,remainsaclearfalsificationofthe messianicclaimsaboutJesus 37 But,saysJenson,theResurrectionofJesusfirst,suchthata timeisopenedupinbetweentheinaugurationandthecompletion,actually“resolvesan antimonyattheheartofIsrael’shope.”ThisisbecauseonedimensionofthePromise concernsthehistoricalmissionofIsraeltobetheconduitof blessing to all nations,suchthat Israel’spurityofidentityisalwaysalso for theothersand not without theothers. “Israel’s callingwastobeablessingtoallnations,”saysJensonexegetingtheAbrahamstory,“and theprophetsinterpretedthefulfillmentofthatcallingasthegatheringofthenationsto fellowshipwithherinworshipofthetrueGod.”Butwiththeriseofmessianicexpectation andtheorientationofthepromisetothefuturethatwasforgedinthecrucibleofExile, suchthatIsrael’sdestinyislocatedinanewcreationbeyondthisage,Jensonnotesthat“no spaceseem[ed]toremainforsuchagathering[ofthenations]inthisage.”38
So,ontheonehand,thereseemednospace in history availableforthegentilesto comein,andyet,ontheother,theblessingofthegentilesandtheirgatheringtoworship theone,trueGoditselfaneventwhich prepares IsraelfortheEnd:“whenGod’speopleis whollytakenintoGodandIsrael’shopesaretherebyfulfilled,thatpeoplemustalreadybe theIsraeltowhichthegentileshavecome.”InSecondTempleJudaism,thistensionseems tohaveremainedsimplyunresolved. Jensonunderstandsthetimeandmissionofthe Church,alongwiththeanticipatoryResurrectionofJesus,asthehistoricalenactmentofthe fullscopeofIsrael’sPromises:“HadJesus’ResurrectionbeenimmediatelytheEnd,Israel’s missionwouldhavebeenaborted”[!],sincetheIsraelthatwouldcometoworshipatthe throneoftheLordwouldnotbethealreadyhistoricallyembodiedIsraeltowhichthe gentileshadcome,Israelwouldnothavefulfilleditsmissiontobeblessingtoallnations.39
37 Wayne D. Dosick, LivingJudaism(San Francisco: HarperOne, 1995), 47-49.
38 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 171.
39 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 171.
23
TheChurch,therefore,isthespaceandtimeGodopensupforthegentilestocome intoIsrael,asthebranchgraftedin,onthewaytotheLord’sconsummationofhispromises withallcreatures. ThisiswhatJensonwillcallthe“eschatologicaldetourofChrist’s coming,”a detour inthesensethatthetrajectoryofIsraelafterthefleshismodified, thoughtnotdiscontinuousandstillrecognizableasthesamepath,preciselyinorderthat thegentilesmaybeincorporated in history intotheworshipoftheone,trueGod.40 “The church,”Jensonexplainsfurther,“is…anappropriateifbeforehandunpredictablesidestep inthefulfillmentoftheLord’spromisestoIsrael.”Forthosebamboozledbysuchadelayor detour,assomeofthosewereintheEarlyChurch,towhomthelettersofThessaloniansor Peterwereaddressedforexample,Jensonnotes,“but,astheauthorofIIPeterwrote,to thoseworriedabouttheLord’sdelay,‘TheLordisnotslowabouthispromise…butis patient’preciselyforthesakeofIsrael’smission. Norindeedaredetoursuncharacteristic ofthewholeplotofJHWH’sstorywithhispeople…”41
Thelanguageof“detour”maybemisleadinghere,ormaydisgruntlesome. Butwhat Jensonattemptstoconveyisthe unique realityoftheChurch:“Thusthechurchisneithera realizationofthenewagenoranitemoftheoldage. Sheispreciselyanevent within the event ofthenewage’sadvent. ”Everthedoggedecumenist,Jensonalsowantstonavigate whatheseesastheoppositeextremesthatschismhasbroughttoconceptionsofthe Churchinthepast,andthusqualifies both thetraditionalProtestantandthetraditional CatholicviewoftheChurch:“Wemustbeverycarefulaboutoutlanguagehere;loose rhetoriccanhavedisastrousspiritualconsequences. Protestantshavesometimes proclaimedwithsatisfactionorevenglee,‘IntheKingdomtherewillbenochurch,’thereby infactblaspheming. CatholicsandProtestantsocialactivistshavesometimesoppositely talkedofthechurchasasortofoverlapoftheKingdomontotheoldage,therebyinfact depictingherasaspaceavailableforidolatry…. ”42
40 I must admit I find the language of detour problematic, but the insight underlying Jenson’s usage of the term so enticting as not to be distracted by semantic quibbles
41 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 171.
42 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 171.
24
TheLifeoftheChurchistheconcreteandavailable,notjustethereal, anticipation of theKingdomwhenitcomestogethertofollowitsmandate,theinexchangeableBrideof ChristfortheLastDay. Sothereislargelyaninauguratedeschatologyherethatresonates fundamentallywithcertainrealistsensibilitiesabouttheChurch. Butitisalsoan inaugurated eschatology inthattheChurchlivesbyanticipationandnotbyfull actualization,wherewedonotmanufacturetheChurchhereastheKingdomaccordingto sociologicalcategories,ascertainothersensibilitiesmaintain. ThatremainsfortheLast Day. AndthisrecognitionalsoacknowledgestheJewishsensibilitiesthat,yesinfact,the newageisnothere yet entirelywhenwelookevencursorilyattheworldanditstragedies, andstillawaitsitsconsummation,wheretheswordswillbebeatenintoplowshares
NowthatwehaveasenseofwhattheChurchisforJenson,andhowitemergesout ofIsraelasaneschatological,butauthenticandnecessary,detour,thequestionremainsof thereciprocalrelationship. WhatofIsraelnow? And,morespecifically,howdoesthe Churchviewthose,oftheheritageofAncientIsraellikeitself,butthatdonotenterher,but insteadremaininthehistoricalcommunityofRabbinicJudaism? Thisiswhere,inJenson’s assessment,muchtraditionalChristiantheologyencountersproblems. Indeed,sincethe ChurchistakenbyChristianstobeanauthenticdetourinGod’sfulfillmentofhis relationshiptotheworld,theChurchhasmostoftenbeentakeninChristianthinkingasthe overarching categoryofGod’sPeople,ortobethe only suchcategorypossible. Sothe ChurchsubsumesIsraelunderitsownwiderscope. Jenson,however,arguesthatthis understandingisnotreallythebiblicalunderstanding,fromalltheconsiderationshehasso farentertained. Rather,fundamentally,whatwemustsayisthatprimarily,“ …thechurch isan event within Israel ”43 Jensonnotes,commentingespeciallyontheSecondVatican Councilrecoveryoftheterm“PeopleofGod”aselementaltotheChurch,that“Asearchof theNewTestament,however,quicklydiscoverssomethingrathersurprising:whenthe NewTestamentreferstothepeopleofGoditrarelyhasthechurchinmind. Thenationof Israelcontinuestoappearas‘thepeople’ofGod,ofteninquotationfromtheOld
43 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 183, emphasis added.
25
Testament;andwhentheNewTestamentdoesrefertothechurchasGod’speople,thisisin everycasebutonedoneatleastinparttoindentifyherwithIsrael”44 [See Appendix I & II]
Ifwecansay,asJensonthinksistheApostolicScripturespredominantmentality, thattheChurchisaneventwithinIsrael,andsoisnot,properlyspeaking,theoverarching categoryofGod’sencounterwithhispeople,theneveniftheChurchmustseeitselfas authenticallythePeopleofGodcoalescedbythetrueandculminatingeventofJesus’ Resurrection,thisprovidesacontextinwhichtoviewcontinuingJudaismasthosestill withinthepurviewofIsraelbutnotnecessarilytheChurch. Thepossibilityhereistosee RabbinicJudaismasanother,notintrinsicallyexhaustive,butlegitimatenonetheless “detour”inGod’sfulfillmentofIsrael’sPromises. Jensonarguesthusly:“Ifthechurchcan understanditsowntimeinthisway,asdetourencompassedwithintheoneextendedevent ofMessiah’sadvent[betweenJesus’ResurrectionandtheConsummationoftheKingdom], thenthechurch’squestionabouttheothercommunity,gatheredbydescentfromAbraham andSarahandbyTorah,acquiresaprecisecontext.”Thepossibilitythusopensforthe ChurchtoconsiderJudaismalsoasauthenticdevelopmentduringthistimeandinthis space:“ForJudaismthusappearstothechurchasapairedphenomenoninthetimeopened withintheMessiah’sadvent,andthenthechurchmayseeJudaismasanotherdetourtaken byGodonhiswaytofinalfulfillment.”45
Whydoesthisrelationshipneedtobere-envisionedor,rather,itsobjective appropriatenessdiscoveredanew? ThequestionaboutthePeopleofGodandtherelation oftheentityChurchtoIsraelandthentotheenduringSynagogue,andGod’sdesignforhis people,hasbeenreawakenedonceagaininourerawithpoignantforceasaresultofthe ShoahEvent,andthecomplicityofcertainChristiandiscourseinthisincomprehensibleand massivedestructionoftheJewishPeopleduringtheSecondWorldWar. Thisisthe
44 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 191, citing, for example: Matthew 2:6, Luke 2:32, Romans 11:1-2, I Peter 2:9.
45 Robert W. Jenson, “Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism” from Carl E. Braaten and Jenson, eds., Jewsand Christians:PeopleofGod, with a symposium on Dabru Emet (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 8.
26
questionofwhathasbeencalled“post-Holocausttheology”:howitispossibletocontinue tospeakofGodgiventhisscenario,andhowtoreckonwiththerealitythatChristian theologicaldiscourseitselfplayedatleastsomeroleinthefacilitationofthisEvent? NowI encounterthisquestionheretoforelatent,thequestionofShoah. Thusfar,Ihaveleftthis questionrelativelyunthematic,eventhoughitistheonewhicheclipsesallothersinour era,sincemycontentionisthatthetheologyofIsraelneedstobe,andshouldhavebeen,a standardlocusforreflectionofChristiantheologyirregardlessofthisEvent,simplybythe overflowinglogicofthebiblicalexperience.
ForJenson,asformuchotherrecenttheology,theunparalleledexperienceofShoah inthetwentiethcenturynecessitatesself-reflectionandself-criticismonthepartofthe ChristianCommunity. SoJensondescribestheimportanceofthecurrentmomentforthe Church’stheology:“WhattheHolocausthasforcedonourattention besidestheevilof whichhumansarecapable wastheurgentneedforthechurchtoappreciateinpractice andtheologytheinitselfmanifestfactthat‘theJewishwayoflife’did not infactend[with thedestructionoftheTempleandthecomingoftheChurch].”Jenson’sassessmentisthat thematerialswerealwaysthereforamorerobusttheologyofIsrael,buttheChurchlargely ignoredthequestion:“Theobservationsandconsiderationsjustadducedhavebeen availablethroughthehistoryofthechurch,norwastheeleventhchapterofRomans recentlyaddedtotheNewTestament.”Thecurrentmoment,however,heraldsareturnto thisquestion,“WhatisnewinChristiantheologyissustainedattentiontothemandthe needtousethemwithacertainbent,provokedofcoursebyEurope’sholocaustofJews.
Insightherehasbeendemandedbyguilt.”Jensondoesnotadvocatearenewedtheology solelyonthebasisofguilt,however,ashesurmises,“Thecontentofnewgentile-Christian awarenessshouldneverthelessnotprincipallybeguiltbutrathersoberrecognitionofthe historyanditspresentmandate.”
46
ThepresentmandateofwhichJensonspeakscallsforanewunderstandingofthe roleofIsraelasthePeopleofGodintheactualizationofGod’sprovidence. Theprevious
46 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 193.
27
understandingofwhathasbeencalled“supersessionism”iswhat“mustbeandisbeing overcome,”Jensonargues. Hedescribes“supersessionism”astheteachingortheological understanding“thatthechurchsucceedsIsraelinsuchfashionasto displace fromthe statusofGod’speoplethoseJewswhodonotenterthechurch.”WhatJensonendeavorsto dohereistobreakastandardinferenceoftheChurch’sthinking. Itisessentialforthe ChurchtoacknowledgethatJesus is Israel’sMessiah,andalsothatitsownidentityisoneof thelegitimatetheo-communallocustomakethisconfessionandtoliveinbetweenthetime oftheResurrectionandtheSecondComing whatJenson’scallsGod’seschatological “detour”. ButwhattheChurchcannotinferfromthis,saysJenson,istheexclusionof continuingJudaismfromGod’sdesignsasaresult:“shedarenotconcludethatthe continuingseparatesynagogueis against God’swill.”47 ThattheChurchtherebysubsumes ordisplacesIsraelassuchisanerroneousinferencethatJensonthinksmustbecorrected. Andhethinksthatthereisspaceopenedupforthisperspectivefromtheviewofthe biblicalcategoryofIsrael,withinwhichtheChurchisanevent,butwhichalsoisnot necessarilyexhaustedbytheChurch.
WhatdoesthismakeoftheChurch’smission in Israel? Insomecircles,such considerationshaveledlargelytoanabandonmentofthetraditionalrealitiesofthe Church. Jensonthinksthismustbeviewedsoberly. Hechastisesmuchrecenttheologythat hasendeavored“toovercome‘supersessionism’”,forthistheologyhas“supposedthattheir effortisincompatiblewithbeliefthattheadventofJesusChristdefinitelyfulfillsthe promisestoIsrael.”Inordertoatoneforthesinsofthepast,andtodeveloprelationswith thecontemporaryJewishCommunity,muchtheologyhasassumedthatovercoming replacementtheologymeansattenuatingtheconstitutiveChristianclaimthatJesus accomplishesIsrael’sPromises. Jensonseessuchreticenceasbasicallyaneviscerationof theChurch’sclaim,itsdiachronicidentityanditsfaithfulnesstotheGospel. This suppositionentailsfurther,Jensonclaims,“thatsupersessionismcanonlybeavoidedby repristinatingaChristologyinwhichJesusisnotquiteidenticalwiththeSon,thatis,by
47 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 193.
28
repristinatingArianismorNestorianism. Butafterthedecisionsofthecouncils,sucha withdrawalamountstoretreatfromthefaith.”48
TheChurchcannotthusrelinquishitsclaimandstillbetheChurch. Itmustcontinue everywhereandalwaystospeakandliveandilluminatetheGospel,includinginrelationto RabbinicJudaism. ButtheGodoftheBibleisaGodofsurprise,whocannotbeso circumscribedinadvance. WhattheChurch,andPaul,mayperhapsthinkshouldhave happened,thatallJewswouldcometoChrist,didnothappeneventhoughitwas bamboozlingfortheChurch. SotheChurchrapidlybecameanalmostexclusivelygentile entityandRabbinicJudaismemergedasanotherpermutationofIsraelinaseparate community. WhereJensonwillbegintochallengesometraditionalthinkingisinreminding usthatwecannotassume“thateventsatthispointescapedGod’sprovidence”either.49
HowthenshouldthenowpredominantlygentileChurchviewthecontinuingIsrael afterthefleshasithasemergedinRabbinicJudaism? HereisthesubstanceofJenson’s trulyinnovativeproposedtheologoumenonfortheChurch:thatwithoutvitiatingitsown claim,theChurchcanviewRabbinicJudaismasanotherauthentic“detour”likeitselfin God’sdesign,onewhichmaintainsthetheo-culturalparticularityofJesus’humanity,in contrasttotheuniversalityoftheChurch,andjustsoisalsofulfillssomeordainedrolein God’sencounterwithhispeople,thatis, in Israel. Jensonexplains:“Thechurch,itishere suggested,shouldregardthecontinuingsynagogueasadetourlikeherself,withinthe FulfillmentofIsrael’shope. BetweentheendofcanonicalIsraelandtheabsoluteEndthe churchwaitsbyfaithinJesus’Resurrection,andthesynagoguewaitsbystudyof torah, readinawaydevisedbytheoldrabbisforjustthissituationofwaiting. Finally,whatever thesynagoguemayjudgeaboutthechurch’sfaith,thechurchmustthinkthatthestudyof torah isindeedworshipoftheone,thatisTriune,God.”50
48 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 335-336.
49 Jenson, “Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism,” from Braaten and Jenson, eds., JewsandChristians, 8.
50 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 194.
29
Fromahistoricalperspective,wecansaythattheChristianCommunityand RabbinicJudaismbothemergeasco-claimantstotheheritageofCanonicalIsrael,eachwith itsownparticularcontinuitiesanddiscontinuities. So“theirclaimstocontinuetothe worshipofIsrael’sGodandtheirclaimsrightlytoreadIsrael’sBibleareprecisely equivalent.”51 Whatthismeans,theologically,isthatwhiletheChurchseesitselftohave encounteredtheanticipationofIsrael’sPromisesinJesus,onthewaytotheirfulfillment,it canalsorecognizethatadivinelyordainedroledoesexistalsofortheotherpaththrough totheconsummationofCanonicalIsrael,RabbinicJudaism.52
Jensonhimselfprovidestheobviousquestiontothisaccount:“WhywouldGod ordaintwoparalleldetours?”inthefulfillmentofhisPromises. InJenson’sunderstanding, thisispreciselybecauseofthedialecticbetweenparticularityanduniversalitythatisatthe heartoftheChurch’s,andIsrael’s,accountoftheworldandGod’srelationtoit. Whilethe ChurchuniversalizesIsrael’smission,thatis,providesaspacewithinhistoryforthe gentilestocomeintoIsraelastheyare,thelossofdistinguishableIsraelafter Torah inthe Churchispreciselythelossofwhatthegentilescome to,thelossofIsrael’s particularity, andsowouldbethelossoftheonepoleofthedynamic. Justas“Christcouldnotknow himselfinapolityalientoIsraelwithoutceasingtobeChrist”53 intheintegrityofhis humanity,soalsoJensoninfers,ChristwouldnotbeChristinabodyalientothefleshof Israel,constitutedasitisbyitsparticularritesofsocio-culticdemarcationandTorah observance.
51 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 194.
52 We should remember, though, that even if we invoke parallelismas an appropriate theological principle, this is not entirelyhistorically genuine. Historically, we must admit some asymmetry, given the antecedents of Rabbinic Judaism in Second Temple Phariseeism, which even if we read Jesus within this tradition, there is relatively more continuity in the former than in the latter case; for the context, especially: David Novak, “From Supersessionism to Parallelism in Jewish-Christian Dialogue” in Braaten and Jenson, eds., JewsandChristians, 95-113.
53 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 180.
30
SoJensonargues:“Mycentralthesisisthis:givenwhatthechurchinfactquickly becameandis,hadthechurchbeentheonlyIsraelinthetimeofitsdetour,thepromises wouldhavebeennotmerely‘fulfilledandnotyetfulfilled,’wouldnothavedisplayedthe famous‘alreadybutnotyet’;theywouldhavebeensimplyinabeyance.”Theywouldhave beeninabeyancelackingtheparticularcontentofwhatispromised. “Iproposetomy fellowChristians,”Jensonwillthenconclude,“thatGodwillstheJudaismofTorahobedienceasthatwhichalonecananddoesholdthelineageofAbrahamandSarah togetherduringthetimeofdetour.”54 ThecommunityofRabbinicJudaismistheGod ordainedcontinuance,alongsidetheChurch,ofhistorico-culturalparticularityinrelationto Israel’suniversalmission.
ThatboththeChurchandJudaismarepathsinGod’sfulfillmentoftheKingdom, lastly,istheworkoftheSpirit. AndthattheyareindeedtheworkofthesameSpiritmakes thecoherencebetweenIsrael,JudaismandtheChurch. Jensondescribesthisastheworkof theSpiritinthefollowingway:“TheSpiritdidnotfirstbegintoliberateahuman communitywhenheintervenedatPentecost;indeed,thedescriptionoftheSpirit’sbeing andworkherepresupposedwasderived…mostlyfromtheOldTestament. ItistheSpirit whomadeprophetswhomakesthepropheticcommunity;theSpiritwhoraisedup‘judges’ tofreethetribesfromhistoricalimpassewhofreesthechurchfromhistory’sintrinsic impasse;theSpiritpromisedanewlifeforIsrael’sdryboneswhoiseschatologicallife’s ‘downpayment’inthechurch.”55 TheSpiritisthefreedomofhumancommunitytobewhat itcannotbesimplyonitsowninitiative:theCovenantPeopleofGod,theDivinePresencein CreaturelyReality.
Thisisthefundamentalandnecessary“spiritual”natureofthesecommunities’lives, accordingtoJenson,suchthatthosewhoworshipGoddosoinSpiritandinTruth,and thosewhowillliveultimatelylive by the Spirit. Sohesays,“…nostructureofhistorical
54 Jenson, “Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism,” from Braaten and Jenson, eds., JewsandChristians, 8, 9.
55 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 183.
31
continuitysimplyassuch andwemusthereincludetorah,circumcision,andtheother nationalguaranteesofIsrael canmaintainthecontinuityofapeoplewhohaveamission otherthantheirownperpetuation. IsraelwouldnothaveremainedIsrael,norwouldthe churchorsynagogueremainthemselves,unlessGodtheSpiritusedthesestructuresto drawhispeopletotheirfinalgoal.”56 ItisnotthecontinuitiesofTorahandcultural demarcation as such,asbyhumaneffortorsociologicalcontinuance,thatmakescontinuing Judaismadivinelyordaineddetour,asalsosuchadetourinGod’splansdoesnotoccur without suchcontinuities. Otherwise,wewouldbesayingthatGod’scallisrevocableand thatGodisnotreallytheGodofdramaticcoherencewithhispreviousacts. Intheend,itis theSpirithimselfwhoistheanimatingcoherenceofthesetwodetoursinGod’shistorical work:“Perhapswemayformulateso:theSpiritmakesthecommondynamismofIsraeland thechurch,impellingIsraeltobecomethechurchandliberatingthechurchforthefulfilling ofIsrael”57
V: Coda—Together the People of God
Inthecontextofcontemporaryreligiouspluralism,andintheshadowoftheShoah Eventduringthetwentiethcentury,Ihaveembarkeduponareneweddiscussionofthe theologyofIsraelandwhatimplicationsthatmighthaveforJewish-Christianencounter. Whatwehaveseen,however,asIanticipatedattheoutset,isthatJudaismrepresentsa uniquecasefortheChristianCommunity. Indeed,giventhe content ofJenson’sproposal,if correctinanysense,aswellasthemoregeneralhistoricalhermeneuticofparallelism,the ChristianquestionofRabbinicJudaismisnotan“interreligious”questionatall,butrather an“ecumenical”one,internalasitistoChristianity’sownstoryanddiscourse,eventhough burdenedasitiswithmuchhistoricaldifficultyandambiguity. AsJensondescribeshis owndevelopment,hewasconvertedtothisunderstandingbytheshiftto parallelism asthe modelforinterpretingthehistoricalemergenceofthetwocommunities:boththeChurch andRabbinicJudaismemergedasparallel,co-claimantstotheheritageofAncientIsrael followingthedestructionoftheTempleandinthewakeoftheministryofJesusthe
56 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 194.
57 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 183.
32
Nazarene:“Itisanabidingconviction:theologicaldiscourseamongJewsandChristiansis notinter-religiousdialogue.”58 Suchthat,“ForChristianity,Judaismcannotbean‘other religion,’andthisistruewhetherornotJudaismcansayanythingreciprocalabout Christianity.”59 Eventhoughthecontextofreligiouspluralismendowsthequestionofthe theologyofIsraelwithmoreforce,thereflectionswhichJensonhereofferscannotbe simplyextrapolatedtoageneralcaseoftheologyofreligions,preciselybecauseofthe uniqueandparticularplaceofIsraelintheverylifeoftheChristianCommunityandits experience. JensonadvancestheologoumenaabouttherelationbetweentheChurchand RabbinicJudaismasaninterpretationespeciallyofRomans9-11,butalsoasamoreglobal understandingofScripturalcoherence,aninterpretationofhowtheentireScriptural World interrelatesasGod’sencounterwiththeworld,withoutsimplyseeingthe progressionofthatnarrativeasaseriesofdisplacementsofoldthingsbynewthings.
AsIhaveexploredhere,furthermore,atheologyofIsraelprovidesonepotential integrativethematicforasystematictheology. TheparticularcharacteroftheScripturesof IsraelasChristianScripture,theidentificationoftheChristianGodastheGodofIsrael,and thepotentialroleofRabbinicJudaismasoneeschatologicaldetourinIsraelinrelationto theChurch,therefore,areofferedasthreedimensionsofacoherentandinterrelated theologicalunderstanding WhatJensonhasfurtherdone,moreover,istoconstruesucha theology,sensitivetovariousloci,asonewhichpotentiallyenablestheChurch,inthe integrityofitsownclaimandidentity,toalsoviewRabbinicJudaismasfulfillingatrueand authenticroleinGod’sdealingswiththeworldonthewaytotheconsummationofthe Kingdom,whenthepeopleofeverynationwillgatherwithIsraeltoworshipatthethrone oftheLambandtheentrancetotheNewJerusalemisthroughthetwelvegatesofIsrael itself.60
58 Robert W. Jenson, “A Theological Autobiography to Date” Dialog:AJournalofTheology46:1 (Spring 2007).
59 Jenson, “Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism,” from Braaten and Jenson, eds., JewsandChristians, 2.
60 Revelation 7; Revelation 21:12-14
33
Ofcourse,theChurchlivesbyanticipationofthisconsummation,for“God’sone ‘people’cannotgatherinthisworldbeforethelastday,thereforethechurchcannowbe thepeopleofGodonlyinanticipationofthatgatheringasthecommunitythatlivesbywhat Godwilleschatologicallymakeofit.”61 Nowduringthistimeofanticipation,theexistence ofanother“eschatologicaldetour”inGod’sCommunitymayseemoddfortheChurch. But aswithalltheantimoniesofitshopethatareyettohavereceivedfullfulfillmentinthis world,thisonealsowillbereconciled:“Butthatistosay,[Jesus’]returnwillterminatethe separationbetweenthechurchandIsraelaccordingtotheflesh…Asjudgmentinthe presentrespect,whattheLord’scomingwilldismissisthegenericungodlinessofthe church’sdominatinggentilesandcontinuingJudaism’sdisbelief.”TheroleofIsraelassuch wasneverforitselfbutforthegloryofGod,andfortheparticipatoryenjoymentofsuch glorybythecreatures. Soattheconsummation,therolesoftheseparatedetourswillend: “WhenChrist’sadventhasbeenaccomplishedinsuchfashionastomakefurthercoming superfluous,therewillindeedbenomoreroleforJudaismasacommunityseparatefrom thechurch,orforthechurchasacommunityseparatefromIsrael;bothwillbesuperseded intheseroles.”62
ThusJensonhasproposedittotheChurchatleast. Hereisonegenuinelycreative re-appropriationofPaul’sseeminghopeinRomans9-11thatallIsraelwillbesaved. Inthe finalanalysis,westillmustaskwhetherthisaccountisaviablecontributiontothecurrent stateofJewish-Christianencounterandwhetheritisdiachronicallycoherentwiththe experienceoftheChurch,aquestionIhopetopursueinfurtherresearch. Thiswould requirearigorouscomparisonofJenson’saccountwithsomeotherimportant,historical theologiesofIsrael,especiallyinitiallyinthecontextoftheoriginalJewish-Christianschism followingthedestructionoftheTempleandthencontemporarilywithdevelopmentsin Catholictheologyfrom Nostra Aetate tothemostrecentconversationsinJewish-Christian dialogueasrepresentedbytheworkofthiscenterhereatBostonCollege. Thereisalsothe
61 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 171-172.
62 Jenson, SystematicTheology, II: 335, 336.
34
crucialquestionofhowsuchaproposalcouldbepotentiallyreceivedbyJewish theologians. IhavedevelopedthispaperasoneofChristiansystematicthinkingprecisely soasnottopreempttheJewishanswertothesamequestion. WhatIwouldventuretosay, nevertheless,isthatJensondoesprovidetheChurchwithanopportunitytoreconsiderand thinkrigorouslythroughitsrelationtocontinuingRabbinicJudaismasapartofamore generalrenewalofitstheologyofIsrael. Heuniquelyproposesthebeginningsofsucha theologyofIsraeltotheChurchthat both affirmsanenduringandordainedrolefor RabbinicJudaismintheworshipofGodandremainsfaithfultotheintegrityoftheChurch’s constitutingclaiminIsrael’sMessiah. AndfewChristiantheologicalcommentatorsonthis questionhavemanagedtokeepbothdimensionsinbalance.
35
Appendix I:
ASchematicoftraditionalreplacementtheologywherebytheChurchsimplydisplacesIsraelasthelocusofGod’sPeople Creation Israel Jesus Church End Spirit
36
Appendix II:
AtentativelyproposedschematicofarenewedtheologyofIsraelinwhichIsraelremainstheoverarchingtheo-communal category. Thereciprocityofthearrowsisnotmeanttosignifyacyclicviewofhistory,thepredominantviewisstillthe narratival-direction,representedbythefinalarrow,butonlytosignifytheanticipatory-eschatologicalroleofJesus.
Apostolic Witness
Judgment & Redemption Church
Triune
37
τέλος
Creation Israel Jesus
Israel Covenant Mary Election
ἀρχή
Spirit Spirit
Life Word
MishnaTalmud Judaism Messiah
38
