future of Israel as a theological question, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2001 by Blaising, Craig A

Actually, dual-covenant theology takes its primary orientation not from the Bible but from modern pluralism. It proposes that Christianity and Judaism see each other as legitimately distinct religions and this creates further incoherence at the Biblical level. Why? Because both Israel in the Tannach and the Church of the NT were profoundly exclusive-not of other peoples, but of other religions. There are no other religions sanctioned by God. To suggest that Christianity and Judaism see each other as validly separate religions insults both Christianity and Judaism at their fundamental, that is Biblical, levels.

But the biggest problem with two-covenant theology is its claim that Israel is related to God by covenant apart from Jesus Christ. Rosemary Ruether, in her book Faith and Fratricide, argues that Christology is the problem in Jewish-Christian relations, and consequently Christology must be revised. Many of those who endorse two-covenant theology affirm the point that Jesus was not the Messiah of the Jews for the simple reason that he did not bring in the messianic age. He may become that Messiah in the future, but he is not at present, and consequently Jews cannot be said to be saved through faith in Jesus. Rather, they have their own covenant relationship with God apart from Christ, more or less like the covenantal nomism that E. P. Sanders says characterized the Jewish relationship to God in the first century quite apart from the religion of Jesus advocated by the apostle Paul. 18

Now the obvious problem with this for evangelical theology is that it is entirely contrary to the teaching of the NT. The Gospels uniformly present Jesus as the Messiah of Israel from the angelic announcement to Mary and Joseph to the sign that was nailed to his cross (Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:28). After his ascension, the apostles proclaimed in Jerusalem that Israel should know that God had made Jesus Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) and that there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:10, 12). As Peter declared to the Council of Israel: "He is the one whom God exalted to his right hand as a Prince and a Savior to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins" (Acts 5:31). Furthermore, the proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel is presented in the NT in terms of the fulfillment of Israel's covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenants) in the twofold manner that we commonly recognize as the present and future fulfillment of the messianic kingdom. The Israel of the future is the Israel of the kingdom of the Son of God, the Messiah, the Prince. To claim that Israel can be related to God by covenant apart from Jesus Christ is nothing less than a repudiation of NT Christianity. 19

V. THEOLOGICAL HERMENEUTICS

Up to this point, I have addressed myself to the question of whether there are theological reasons for asserting a future for Israel. The answer is, contrary to supersessionism, yes. But it is not the "yes" of dual covenant theology. The "yes" to Israel's future is the "yes" spoken by the Scripture, both Tannach and Christian Bible, both Old and New Testament alike. But that "yes" cannot be heard as the answer to an isolated question. The problem that we face here is the structural nature of supersessionism, the deep set tradition of excluding ethnic, national Israel from the theological reading of Scripture. To put Israel back into the picture does not involve a slight change of interpretation on a few passages, but the prospect of an overall adjustment of the way Scripture is to be read.