A Non-Dispensational Case For Christian Zionism and The Permanent Election of the Jews - A Historical Reflection

Jul 17

"Now you can read it in the newspapers; God is fulfilling His promises.”

Karl Barth concerning Israel retaking Jerusalem, 1967

Should Christians support Israel? Support for Israel and the Jewish people is becoming an increasingly difficult position to hold. Our cultural moment has found itself facing an all too familiar anti-Jewish zeitgeist on two fronts. First, within the online world, rampant antisemitism is forming against the Jewish people. These attacks center around three main insinuations: Envy over Jewish material success (primarily around banking and wealth), the nation of Israel vs the Palestinians within the light of the current social justice epoch, and the rising accusation that the Jewish people are the focal point of all the world's problems (witnessed through accusations of their influence in Media, Politics, Hollywood, Finance, Shadow Government etc.). In uncertain economic times, we can expect the above sentiment to grow if history is any indicator. The second front is the growing tide of replacement theology challenging the church which on occasion partners itself with the above arguments. There is an ongoing battle against the almost habitual pattern of the Church in which it believes that it has replaced Israel. We stand at the crossroads of both of these patterns, draped in the shadow of the holocaust, which is less than a hundred years old.

One of the main cultural accusations against Christian Zionism is the belief that Christian Zionism is based on "Faulty Dispensational Theology," the "Scofield Bible," or "John Darby's theology." This argument attempts to delegitimize support for ethnic Israel, the state of Israel, and the ongoing role that the Jewish people are covenantally connected to the Lord by associating it with dispensationalism. The ultimate intent of this red herring argument is to delegitimize Christian support for Israel by mischaracterizing support for Israel as a modern aberration in church theology.

This article will not examine the merits of dispensationalism. Its goal is to show that Christian Zionism and biblical support of the election of the Jewish people stand on their own, outside of dispensationalism. My goal is equally not to disparage dispensationalism. When discussing dispensationalism, I also must acknowledge that there are two versions of dispensationalism, traditional and progressive, with different approaches to duel covenant theology and pre-tribulation rapture eschatology. My only goal with this essay is to interact with the argument that Christian Zionism is tied to dispensationalism. Even though I have some sharp disagreements with dispensationalism, I recognize that well-intentioned Western dispensationalism has done much to stop antisemitism in the Western church and that it also accurately predicted the modern state of Israel. Whatever disagreements I have with dispensationalism, there is much to be grateful for within those two aspects of this stream of thought.

I will examine the writings of some of the greatest theologians and biblical scholars over the last 500 years of church history. I am also going to interact with both protestant and catholic official church body teachings and statements on Israel and the Jewish people. The intended target of all of these statements is to show that there is a cohesive voice deep within the universal church, not dependent on a denomination, that recognizes 3 things:

There would be a return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.
The election of the Jewish people is permanent and stands as the irrevocable promise between God and the Jewish people, regardless of whether they know Jesus. (This does not guarantee salvation, which only exists within Jesus, but it recognizes election as promised to the patriarchs and confirmed by Paul in Romans 9-11)
There will be a mass salvatory event where the veil is removed from the eyes of the Jewish people, and they will nationally recognize Jesus.

As a final point before we turn towards our theologians, scholars, and church statements, I want to point out that the location of most of these statements will be from Europe and America. The reason for this is that this has been the primary location of the Jews (not entirely, but generally). Because of this, the statements made regarding the Jewish people have come from church activity in Europe and America. Let us turn our eyes to nine influential theologians and scholars.

Protestant Tradition

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892)

Spurgeon needs no introduction. He is arguably one of the most influential modern theologians who frequently critiqued Darby and dispensationalism while recognizing the significance of Israel and the Jewish people. Spurgeon's statements lead heavily towards an understanding of a literal return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel. He saw this as both prophetically significant but also as the mercy and grace of God on the Jewish people related to their covenantal promises. Spurgeon preached at an event called the British Society for the Propagation of the Gospel Amongst the Jews in 1864. In his sermon, "The Restoration and Conversion of the Jews," Spurgeon stated the following:

"There will be a native government again; there will again be the form of a body politic; a state shall be incorporated, and a king shall reign. Israel has now become alienated from her own land. Her sons, though they can never forget the sacred dust of Palestine, yet die at a hopeless distance from her consecrated shores. But it shall not be so forever, for her sons shall again rejoice in her: her land shall be called Beulah, for as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall her sons marry her. "I will place you in your own land" is God's promise to them. They are to have a national prosperity which shall make them famous; nay, so glorious shall they be that Egypt, and Tyre, and Greece, and Rome, shall all forget their glory in the greater splendor of the throne of David. If there be anything clear and plain, the literal sense and meaning of this passage [Ezekiel 37:1-10]—a meaning not to be spirited or spiritualized away—must be evident that both the two and the ten tribes of Israel are to be restored to their own land, and that a king is to rule over them." (Spurgeon, 1864)

Spurgeon also stated:

"If we read the Scripture's aright the Jews have a great deal to do with this world's history. They shall be gathered in; Messiah shall come, the Messiah they are looking for—the same Messiah who came once shall come again—shall come as they expected him to come the first time. They then thought he would come a prince to reign over them, and so he will when he comes again. He will come to be king of the Jews and to reign over his people most gloriously; for when he comes, Jew and Gentile shall have equal privileges, though there shall yet be some distinction afforded to that royal family from whose loins Jesus came; for he shall sit upon the throne of his father David, and unto him shall be gathered all nations." (Spurgeon, 1864)

Spurgeon would have agreed with Kaiser's interpretation of Jeremiah 16:14-15, stating: "If the dispersion was a mark of God's judgment, according to the prophets, then Israel's return to the land is the mark of God's grace. In fact, so astounding will be the future return of Israel that it will make the exodus from Egypt seem small in comparison." (House, 224)

John Murray (1898-1975)

Murray was a Scottish-born Calvinist theologian who taught at Princeton Seminary before he helped found Westminster Theological Seminary. He was ordained in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. In his epistle to the Romans, Murray states the following:

"To the Jew first, and also to the Greek...It does not appear sufficient to regard this priority as that merely of time. In this text there is no suggestion to the effect that the priority is merely that of time. The implication appears to be rather that the power of God unto salvation through faith has primary relevance to the Jew, and the analogy of Scripture would indicate that this peculiar relevance to the Jew arises from the fact that the Jew had been chosen by God to be the recipient of the promise of the gospel and that to him were committed the oracles of God...the gospel is pre-eminently the gospel for the Jew.
While it is true that in respect of the privileges accruing from Christ's accomplishments there is now no longer Jew or Gentile and the Gentiles "are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (Eph. 3:6), yet it does not follow that Israel no longer fulfills any particular design in the realization of God's worldwide saving purpose...Israel are both "enemies" and "beloved" at the same time, enemies as regards the gospel, beloved as regards the election... "Beloved" thus means that God has not suspended or rescinded his relation to Israel as his chosen people in terms of the covenants made with their fathers.
Unfaithful as Israel have been and broken off for that reason, yet God still sustains his peculiar relation of love to them, a relation that will be demonstrated and vindicated in the restoration." (Murray 1997, #Vol. I, p. 28 and Vol. II pp. xiv-xv and 76-101

Jonathan Edward, (1703-1758)

Edward was an American revivalist, theologian, and preacher. He is widely regarded as one of early America's most important and original philosophical theologians. He has stated the following concerning the Jews and Israel:

"Jewish infidelity shall be overthrown...the Jews in all their dispersions shall cast away their old infidelity, and shall have their hearts wonderfully changed, and abhor themselves for their past unbelief and obstinacy. They shall flow together to the blessed Jesus, penitently, humbly, and joyfully owning him as their glorious King and only Savior, and shall with all their hearts, as one heart and voice, declare his praises unto other nations...Nothing is more certainly foretold than this national conversion of the Jews in Rom. xi.
Besides the prophecies of the calling of the Jews, we have a remarkable providential seal of the fulfillment of this great event, by a kind of continual miracle, viz. their being preserved as a distinct nation...the world affords nothing else like it. There is undoubtedly a remarkable hand of providence in it. When they shall be called, that ancient people, who alone were so long God's people for so long a time, shall be his people again, never to be rejected more. They shall be gathered together into one fold, together with the Gentiles...." (Edwards, 607)

Charles Hodge (1797 - 1878)

Hodge is considered one of the greatest reformed postmillennial theologians of the last few hundred years. He was a Presbyterian theologian who taught at Princeton Seminary in the 1800's. He stated the following in his Systematic Theology on Romans:

"The second great event, which, according to the common faith or the Church, is to precede the second advent of Christ, is the national conversion of the Jews. That there is to be such a national conversion may be argued from the original call and destination of that people. As the rejection of the Jews was not total, so neither is it final. First, God did not design to cast away his people entirely, but by their rejection, in the first place, to facilitate the progress of the gospel among the Gentiles. and ultimately to make the conversion of the Gentiles the means of converting the Jews. Because if the rejection of the Jews has been a source of blessing, much more will their restoration be the means of good. The restoration of the Jews to the privileges of God's people is included in the ancient predictions and promises made respecting them . . .The future restoration of the Jews is, in itself, a more probable event than the introduction of the Gentiles into the church of God." (Hodges, 270-285)

John Calvin (1509 - 1564)

Calvin, the French Theologian who gave Calvinism its name, was one of the main Reformers during the Protestant Reformation. Unfortunately, towards the end of his life, Calvin made many harsh and punitive statements against the Jews. Yet, even in his Epistle to the Romans, he recognized the future restoration of the Jews and their divine calling.

"I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first born in God's family.
As Jews are the firstborn, what the Prophet declares must be fulfilled, especially in them: for that scripture calls all the people of God Israelites, it is to be ascribed to the pre-eminence of that nation, who God had preferred to all other nations. God distinctly claims for himself a certain seed, so that his redemption may be effectual in his elect and peculiar nation. God was not unmindful of the covenant which he had made with their fathers, and by which he testified that according to his eternal purpose he loved that nation: and this he confirms by this remarkable declaration, that the grace of the divine calling cannot be made void." (Calvin, 434-440)

JC Ryle (1816-1900)

Ryle was an English Anglican bishop. Spurgeon considered him the "best man in the Church of England." Consider some of the statements that he made.

"I believe that the Jews shall ultimately be gathered again as a separate nation, restored to their own land, and converted to the faith of Christ, after going through great tribulation." (Jer. 30:10-11; 31:10; Rom. 11:25-26; Dan. 12:1; Zech. 13:8-9). (Ryle, 9)
I beseech you to take up anew the prophetical Scriptures and to pray that you may not err in interpreting their meaning. Read them in the light of those two great polestars, the first and second advents of Jesus Christ. Bind up with the first advent the rejection of the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles, the preaching of the gospel as a witness to the world and gathering out of the election of grace. Bind up with the second advent the restoration of the Jews, the pouring out of judgment on unbelieving Christians, the conversion of the world and the establishment of Christ's kingdom upon earth. (Ryle, 47-48)
Reader, however great the difficulties surrounding many parts of unfulfilled prophecy, two points appear to my own mind to stand out as plainly as if written by a sunbeam. One of these points is the second personal advent of our Lord Jesus Christ before the Millennium. The other of these events is the future literal gathering of the Jewish nation and their restoration to their own land. I tell no man that these two truths are essential to salvation, and that he cannot be saved except he sees them with my eyes. But I tell any man that these truths appear to me distinctly set down in holy Scripture and that the denial of them is as astonishing and incomprehensible to my own mind as the denial of the divinity of Christ.” (Ryle, 112-115)

Karl Barth (1886 - 1968)

Karl Barth is considered one of the greatest theologians of the 19th century. His commentary on Romans and his Church Dogmatics theological Summa are masterpieces in Christian thought. Barth has contributed much to the ideas around the concept of election. Specifically, as Soulen pointed out in The God of Israel and Christian Theology, "Barth advances the innovative thesis that God's work as Consummator engages human creation in and through the covenant that God initiates, sustains, and ultimately completes with the Jewish people." (Soulen, 83) Barth also had a great deal of influence on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who eventually was killed by the Nazis in his assassination attempt on Hitler's life. Barth understood that the election of Israel was a permanent fixture.

"There is one thing we must emphasize especially. The Word did not simply become any "flesh." It became Jewish flesh. The Church's whole doctrine of the incarnation and atonement becomes abstract and valueless and meaningless to the extent that [Jesus' Jewishness] comes to be regarded as something accidental and incidental. The New Testament witness to Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, stands on the soil of the Old Testament and cannot be separated from it. The pronouncements of the New Testament Christology may have been shaped by a very non-Jewish environment. But they relate always to a man who is seen to be not a man in general, a neutral man, but the conclusion and sum of the history of God with the people of Israel, the One who fulfills the covenant made by God with his people" (Barth, 166)
“Jesus Christ did not come in order to divide and to destroy, but to reconcile and to unite. He died and was resurrected primarily for Jews, but also for Gentiles, so that both might be gathered into one flock... The people of God is greater than the church. The church, the synagogue, and the State of Israel, as well as secularized Jews, belong in this people and carry it's name, because, since the calling of Abraham, even those who were not loved are sustained by God's mercy and patience.” (Barth, The People of God, 71)
“Without any doubt the Jews are to this very day the chosen people of God in the same sense as they have been so from the beginning, according to the Old and New Testaments. They have the promise of God; and if we Christians from among the gentiles have it too, then it is only as those chosen with them, as guests in their house, as new wood grafted onto their old tree.” (Barth, The Jewish Problem and the Christian Answer, 200)
“The State of Israel has given Judaism a form which is to be affirmed and supported by the Church.” (Barth, The People of God, 172)

Quoting Soulen again, he states about Barth: "For Barth, God's covenant with Israel marks the point at which God's work as Consummator initially engages humankind in concrete, historical form, the covenant so established, Barth insists, is eternal; it cannot be abrogated or set aside. (CD, 23) For Barth, therefore, God's fidelity to the consummation of the world can be nothing other than God's fidelity to God's eternal covenant with the people of Israel." (Soulen, 86)

Reinhold Niebuhr (1892 - 1971)

Niebuhr was a Reformed public theologian, ethicist, and professor at Union Theological Seminary for 30 years. In 1964, he won the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his role as a public theologian. Niebuhr was also extremely influential in establishing the modern state of Israel. He gave many public speeches on the importance of the Jewish people returning to Israel. Niebuhr also founded the magazine Christianity and Crisis, in which he wrote frequent articles supporting Zionism. "In 1957 Niebuhr wrote an instrumental article titled "Our Stake in the State of Israel" in The New Republic, another journal he helped found." (McDermott, 224) Throughout his entire life, he never wavered in his public support for Zionism, Niebuhr spilled much ink in Christianity in Crisis, The New York Times, The Nation, and The New Republic on behalf of Zionism and spoke untold words on behalf of the Jewish people and their return to the land of Israel. "In 1969, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem awarded him an honorary degree, which he was unable to receive in person" due to a stroke, and "in the only instance in its history, the president of the university left Israel to award the degree to Niebuhr in person." (McDermott, 224) Abraham Heschel, the great Jewish theologion, also gave the eulogy at Niebuhr's funeral. (Goldman, 2019)

George Lindbeck (1923 - 2018)

Lindbeck was a distinguished Lutheran minister and the father of post-liberal theology. He was also a "delegate observer" during Vatican II, which we will discuss in more detail below. He taught at Yale Divinity School and commented extensively on the Jewish people, Israel, and the church. Shaun Brown cataloged his work regarding Israel in the book George Lindbeck and The Israel of God - Scripture, Ecclesiology, and Ecumenism. Michael Wyschogrod, the modern Jewish theologian, heavily influenced Lindbeck. Lindbeck argued that "Wyschogrod's book, The Body of Faith, was ecclesiological foundationa for him" (Brown, 118). Lindbeck has credited "Wyschogrod's work as influencing his understanding of Israel, Jews, and Judaism, but also an understanding of his own faith as a Christian." (Brown, 118) Lindbeck frequently quoted Wyschogrod in relationship to election:

"The general message is clear. Israel's election is irrevocable. If and when Israel sins, it is punished, even severely. The people will be expelled from their land and sent into exile. But the punishment will not destroy Israel, and it will not last forever. God's love for Israel will return, and a reconciliation will take place. God will bring back the exiles from wherever they are and reestablish the kingdom as before." (Soulen, 65)

Lindbeck stated in no flippant terms,

"Sola gratia, the unconditionality of grace, is seen most clearly in God's choice of Israel. It has two aspects: first, there was no reason for the choice, and second, it is irrevocable. God is faithful; he cannot break his promises; he must fulfill his oath" (Lindbeck, 441)

In distinguishing the church from Israel, Lindbeck also states that

"in being shaped by the story of Christ, the church shares (rather than fulfills) the story of Israel." (Fowl, 166)

Theologians and Scholars

The previous statements are just a few of the statements made over the last 500 years regarding the permanent election of the Jewish people and the significance of the land of Israel as it relates to the promises of God. There is some variance in how all of these thinkers viewed the Jewish people, Israel, and the Church, yet combined, one can see a collective vector for God's ongoing work with the Jewish people. Many more statements exist (we didn't cover many of the commentaries by Cranfield, Burton, Bruce, Moo, Dunn, or the many others who saw the election of Israel and the significance of a Jewish return to the land of Israel). It's also important to understand that these statements exist outside of dispensationalism and reflect a wide stream of thought within the church. Many of the above theologians and scholars spoke sharply of dispensationalism, and none viewed Israel through a pre tribulation rapture-focused eschatological lens. Let us now look at official church statements.

Official Church Body Statements:

Roman Catholic Church, Vatican II and Nostra Aetete, 1965

Before we engage with the Catholic Church's statements on Israel and the Jewish people, I want to walk some of my Protestant readers through how the Catholic Church's official statements or decrees work. This "style" of how the Catholic Church operates is very helpful in understanding the significance of the material we will review. To explain this style, I am going to quote heavily from Msgr. Jorge Mejia who was the Executive Secretary to the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. He makes the following 3 points in regard to how the Catholic Church functions:

"The first aspect is that changes in the Catholic Church are never sudden and not comparable, as the Italian proverb goes, to lightning from a clear sky. They are the ripe fruit of first hidden currents, flowing below the surface but well nourished by the fertile soil of authentic tradition, which long habit, perhaps even centuries old, has tended to burden and obscure. Those aware of the changing force of the new ideas and insights well know that if they rush they only endanger their intuitions. They wait for the proper time, kairos, the time appointed in God's unfathomable design.
The second aspect is that if the Catholic Church is slow and proceeds by careful steps in arriving at major decisions, implying some measure of change of former attitudes, once such decisions are arrived at, it clings to them in a way which can well be qualified as tenacious. Changes in the Church are always intended to express a deeper faithfulness to tradition. "Tradition," it is known, is not in Catholicism a word without real content (nor, for that matter, in Judaism). It means the internal coherence of the Church with its own apostolic origin all along the ages.
When the Church comes to a decision, especially a conciliar decision, it does not go back on it. This however does not at all mean that thereby everything is settled. The Catholic Church is a world in itself, if one may use such an expression, strongly unified but not to the point of uniformity, with many centers of sacred authority, but with very little power of coercion, which it seldom uses." (Croner, 5-7)

To briefly recap the above: the Catholic Church moves slowly to make decisions; it is like navigating a large ship, but when it does decide at the conciliar level, it is like a pit bull grabbing the idea. The goal of introducing a new idea or statement is to try to bring in a more faithful way of seeing itself in light of its tradition but also in light of a deeper reality in what the Church believes is the correct adjustment at that right time, within God's design for the Church. Even an official doctrine given at the Papal level must still flow down to its 1.3 Billion believers, and this takes time to work out.

One final aspect of how the Catholic Church functions is a discussion around its authority structure, which, to Protestants, can sound very unusual. Mejia says this concerning the authority structure of the Catholic Church:

"The Ecumenical Council, along with the Pope, is the supreme teaching authority of the Catholic Church. If it's teaching is not always infallible in the proper sense of the word, there is no doubt that in the doctrinal structure of the Church it has a unique weight. Such weight comes, in the first place, from what is called, in Catholic theology, the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, but also from the position of every Council in the flow of tradition. What a Council intends to do is mainly to find the proper traditional response to a new challenge from inside or outside the Church and give its sanction to such a response. Thus, on one hand, it is grounded in a deeper understanding of tradition and, on the other hand, it stamps out this new (but also traditional) understanding with the seal of concealer authority. Catholics are supposed to follow suit, not because of the novelty of the teaching, but because of the unique value of this new interpretation of tradition. It opens up a new perspective, but at the same time, marks it with the character of authenticity, of an authentic interpretation of tradition." (Croner, 8)

With this in mind, we now turn to the Declaration of Nostra Aetate as the first Catholic conciliar document to address the relationship between the Church and Judaism. Nostra Aetate (No. 4) is the first step in understanding the Catholic Church's relationship to itself and Judaism. The statement made in this document and its significance cannot be overstated, and these statements are now the permanent teaching of the Catholic Church which influences over a billion people. Nostra Aetate says the following concerning the Jewish people:

"As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.
Thus the Church acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our
Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself.
The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.
As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading. Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle. In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).
Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God, they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.
Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of antisemitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.
Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows." (Paul VI, 1965)

In the above, we can see the Catholic Church's confirmation of the election of Israel. It also confirms what Romans teaches by saying that the Lord has not repented from the "gifts and the calls" given to the Jewish people. It recognizes that the church draws nourishment from the olive tree of Israel. This statement might seem pale in comparison to some of the other statements we will read by church bodies, but it is monumental in what it has produced. It has opened up a dialogue all through Catholicism with the Jewish people. It has also sparked many further statements of support and theological analysis by many in Catholicism. Nostra Aetate was the small shift that opened the titanic floodgates of Catholicism's understanding of itself and the Jewish people.

One of the more direct documents that the Catholic Church has produced on Israel and the Jewish election is A Reflection on Theological Questions Pertaining to Catholic-Jewish Relations on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of "Nostra ætate" (No. 4). This document is not a magisterial document or doctrinal document created by the Church. Still, it is a document the Catholic Church requests to assemble reflections based on the forward movement Nostra Aetate has developed within the Church. When I mentioned the small currents of progress the Catholic Church makes before the large decisions, these documents create the more binding conciliar and Papal statements of the Catholic Church. This is a forty-nine-point document which I recommend everyone read in full, but here I will quote a few key points below:

On the part of many of the Church Fathers the so-called replacement theory or supersessionism steadily gained favor until in the Middle Ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the relationship with Judaism: the promises and commitments of God would no longer apply to Israel because it had not recognised Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God, but had been transferred to the Church of Jesus Christ which was now the true 'new Israel', the new chosen people of God. Arising from the same soil, Judaism and Christianity in the centuries after their separation became involved in a theological antagonism which was only to be defused at the Second Vatican Council. With its Declaration "Nostra aetate" (No.4) the Church unequivocally professes, within a new theological framework, the Jewish roots of Christianity. While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ, the Church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel. A replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a Church of the Gentiles and the rejected Synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundations. From an originally close relationship between Judaism and Christianity a long-term state of tension had developed, which has been gradually transformed after the Second Vatican Council into a constructive dialogue relationship. (17)
Like the Church itself, even in our own day, Israel bears the treasure of its election in fragile vessels. The relationship of Israel with its Lord is the story of its faithfulness and its unfaithfulness. In order to fulfill his work of salvation despite the smallness and weakness of the instruments he chose, God manifested his mercy and the graciousness of his gifts, as well as his faithfulness to his promises which no human infidelity can nullify (cf. Rom 3:3; 2 Tim 2:13). At every step of his people along the way God set apart at least a 'small number' (cf. Deut 4:27), a 'remnant' (cf. Is 1:9; Zeph 3:12; cf. also Is 6:13; 17:5-6), a handful of the faithful who 'have not bowed the knee to Baal' (cf. 1 Kings 19:18). Through this remnant, God realized his plan of salvation. Constantly the object of his election and love remained the chosen people as through them – as the ultimate goal – the whole of humanity is gathered together and led to him. (22)
The Church is called the new people of God (cf. "Nostra Aetate", No.4) but not in the sense that the people of God of Israel has ceased to exist. The Church "was prepared in a remarkable way throughout the history of the people of Israel and by means of the Old Covenant" ("Lumen gentium", 2). The Church does not replace the people of God of Israel, since as the community founded on Christ, it represents in him the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel. This does not mean that Israel, not having achieved such a fulfillment, can no longer be considered to be the people of God. "Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures" ("Nostra aetate", No.4). (23)
For Jewish-Christian dialogue in the first instance God's covenant with Abraham proves to be constitutive, as he is not only the father of Israel but also the father of the faith of Christians. In this covenant community it should be evident for Christians that the covenant that God concluded with Israel has never been revoked but remains valid on the basis of God's unfailing faithfulness to his people, and consequently the New Covenant which Christians believe in can only be understood as the affirmation and fulfillment of the Old. Christians are therefore also convinced that through the New Covenant the Abrahamic covenant has obtained that universality for all peoples which was originally intended in the call of Abram (cf. Gen 12:1-3). This recourse to the Abrahamic covenant is so essentially constitutive of the Christian faith that the Church without Israel would be in danger of losing its locus in the history of salvation. By the same token, Jews could with regard to the Abrahamic covenant arrive at the insight that Israel without the Church would be in danger of remaining too particularist and of failing to grasp the universality of its experience of God. In this fundamental sense, Israel and the Church remain bound to each other according to the covenant and are interdependent. (33)
That there can only be one history of God's covenant with mankind, and that consequently Israel is God's chosen and beloved people of the covenant which has never been repealed or revoked (cf. Rom 9:4; 11:29), is the conviction behind the Apostle Paul's passionate struggle with the dual fact that while the Old Covenant from God continues to be in force, Israel has not adopted the New Covenant. In order to do justice to both facts, Paul coined the expressive image of the root of Israel into which the wild branches of the Gentiles have been grafted (cf. Rom 11:16-21). One could say that Jesus Christ bears in himself the living root of the "green olive tree", and yet in a deeper meaning that the whole promise has its root in him (cf. Jn 8:58). This image represents for Paul the decisive key to thinking of the relationship between Israel and the Church in the light of faith. With this image Paul gives expression to the duality of the unity and divergence of Israel and the Church. On the one hand the image is to be taken seriously in the sense that the grafted wild branches have not their origin as branches in the plant onto which they are grafted and their new situation represents a new reality and a new dimension of God's work of salvation, so that the Christian Church cannot merely be understood as a branch or a fruit of Israel (cf. Mt 8:10-13). On the other hand, the image is also to be taken seriously in the sense that the Church draws nourishment and strength from the root of Israel, and that the grafted branches would wither or even die if they were cut off from the root of Israel (cf. "Ecclesia in Medio Oriente", 21). (34)
Another focus for Catholics must continue to be the highly complex theological question of how Christian belief in the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ can be combined in a coherent way with the equally clear statement of faith in the never-revoked covenant of God with Israel. It is the belief of the Church that Christ is the Saviour for all. There cannot be two ways of salvation, therefore, since Christ is also the Redeemer of the Jews in addition to the Gentiles. Here we confront the mystery of God's work, which is not a matter of missionary efforts to convert Jews, but rather the expectation that the Lord will bring about the hour when we will all be united, "when all peoples will call on God with one voice and 'serve him shoulder to shoulder'" ("Nostra aetate", No.4).(37) ("The Gifts And Callings", 2015)

The above statements contain much, and the ongoing dialogue between Judaism and the Catholic Church over the last 50 years has been miraculous. It is a place of transcendent victory, and since 1993, even the official Catechism of the Catholic Church has included the statement, "The Old Covenant has never been revoked." In this place of truth with one another, tensions have been diffused on both sides, and it is now possible for Jews and Christians to explore the mystery of their connected and intertwined paths.

As a final note on the Catholic perspective, Catholicism obviously can't suffer under the accusation of evangelical dispensationalism. I have also not pointed out the numerous Dioceses and Catholic theologians who have written extensively in a positive way about the main thrust of this article. Rather than go through each of these, I have just handled the official Vatican statements, which I believe is enough for the purposes of the point I am attempting to make.

Protestant Church Body Statements:

World Council of Churches (1948, 1961, 1968, 1975, 1983)

If the Protestant tradition had anything comparable to the unity within the Vatican, it would be the World Council of Churches (WCC). The WCC was founded through a "1920 encyclical from the (Orthodox) Synod of Constantinople who suggested a "fellowship of churches". Leaders representing more than 100 churches voted in 1937-38 to found a World Council of Churches." ("History", n.d.)

The Council focuses on issues like theology, sacraments, ordinances, international matters, relief work, and missionary activity. It is interdenominational and has representatives from every protestant denomination while also including Eastern Orthodox influence. During the years listed above, the WCC made sustained statements about the Church and the Jewish people. I am quoting one statement below; I have chosen this specific statement from the Consultation on the Church and the Jewish People (CCJP), composed of Christians from the World Council of Churches member churches. I chose a statement from 1988 because it accurately reflects all the previous statements made by the WCC in their totality.

The Consultation on the Church and the Jewish People (CCJP) (composed of Christians from the member-churches of the World Council of Churches who are engaged in promoting Jewish-Christian dialogue) issued the statement at the conclusion of its meeting in Sigtuna, Sweden, 31 October - 4 November 1988.

“In recent times, a number of member churches of the WCC and/or church conferences to which they belong, following a similar direction, have issued separate official statements dealing with such topics as 1) antisemitism and the Shoah (Holocaust), 2) covenant and election, 3) the land and State of Israel, 4) the Scripture, 5) Jesus and Torah, 6) mission, and 7) common responsibilities of Jews and Christians. When examined in their totality, these statements significantly advance the Christian understanding of Judaism and Jewish-Christian relations on the basis of key points:

that the covenant of God with the Jewish people remains valid;
that antisemitism and all forms of the teaching of contempt for Judaism are to be repudiated;
that the living tradition of Judaism is a gift of God;
that coercive proselytism directed toward Jews is incompatible with Christian faith;
that Jews and Christians bear a common responsibility as witnesses to God's righteousness and peace in the world.

The churches still struggle with the issue of the continuing role of Jesus and the mission of the Church in relation to the Jewish people and with the question of the relation between the Covenant and the Land, especially in regard to the State of Israel. We need also to give attention to the self-understanding of those Jews who declare their faith in Jesus as messiah, yet consider themselves as remaining Jewish.

Affirmations

In the light of the growth of the Christian understanding of Judaism in the past several decades, we welcome the new appreciation of the faith and life of the Jewish people. We as Christians firmly hold to our confession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and God (Jn. 20:28), in the creative, redemptive, and sanctifying work of the triune God, and in the universal proclamation of the gospel. We therefore feel free in Christ to make the following affirmations.

We believe that God is the God of all people, yet God called Israel to be a blessing to all the families of the earth (Gen. 12:3) and a light to the nations (Is. 42:6). In God's love for the Jewish people, confirmed in Jesus Christ, God's love for all humanity is shown.
We give thanks to God for the spiritual treasures we share with the Jewish people: faith in the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex. 3:16); knowledge of the name of God and of the commandments; the prophetic proclamation of judgment and grace; the Hebrew Scriptures; and the hope of the coming kingdom. In all these, we find common roots in biblical revelation and see spiritual ties that bind us to the Jewish people.
We recognize that Jesus Christ both binds together and divides us as Christians and Jews. As a Jew, Jesus in his ministry addressed himself primarily to Jews, affirmed the divine authority of the Scriptures and the worship of the Jewish people, and thus showed solidarity with his own people. He came to fulfill, not to abrogate, the Jewish life of faith based on the Torah and the Prophets (Mt. 5:17). Yet Jesus, by his proclamation of the dawn of the eschatological kingdom, call of disciples, interpretation of the Law, messianic claims, and above all his death and resurrection, inaugurated a renewal of the covenant resulting in the new movement of the early Church, which in important ways proved also discontinuous with Judaism.
We affirm that, in the words of Vatican II, "what happened in his (Jesus') passion cannot be blamed on all the Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today" (Nostra Aetate 4). We reject, as contrary to the will of God, the view that the sufferings of Jews in history are due to any corporate complicity in the death of Christ.
We acknowledge that the saving work of Christ gave birth to a new community of faith within the Jewish community, a fact that eventually led to tensions and polemics over the issues of the manner of incorporation of gentiles into the elect people of God and the role of the Mosaic Law as a criterion for salvation (Acts 15:1). The majority of Jews, in their understanding of Torah, did not accept the apostolic proclamation of the risen Christ. The early Christians, too, regarded themselves as faithful Jews, but in their understanding of the eschatological events, opened the doors to the gentiles. Thereby two communities of faith gradually emerged, sharing the same spiritual roots, yet making very different claims. Increasingly, their relations were embittered by mutual hostility and polemics.
We deeply regret that, contrary to the spirit of Christ, many Christians have used the claims of faith as weapons against the Jewish people, culminating in the Shoah, and we confess sins of word and deed against Jews through the centuries. Although not all Christians in all times and all lands have been guilty of persecution of Jews, we recognize that in the Christian tradition and its use of Scripture and liturgy there are still ideas and attitudes toward Judaism and Jews that consciously or unconsciously translate into prejudice and discrimination against Jews.
We acknowledge with the apostle Paul that the Jewish people have by no means been rejected by God (Rom. 11:1,11). Even after Christ, "They are (present tense) the Israelites, and to them belong (present tense) the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises" (Rom. 9:4). In God's design, their unbelief in Christ had the positive purpose of the salvation of gentiles until, in God's good time and wisdom, God will have mercy on all (Rom. 11:11,25,26,32). Gentile Christians, engrafted as wild olive shoots on the tree of the spiritual heritage of Israel, are therefore admonished not to be boastful or self-righteous toward Jews but rather to stand in awe before the mystery of God (Rom. 11:l8,20,25,33).
We rejoice in the continuing existence and vocation of the Jewish people, despite attempts to eradicate them, as a sign of God's love and faithfulness towards them. This fact does not call into question the uniqueness of Christ and the truth of the Christian faith. We see not one covenant displacing another, but two communities of faith, each called into existence by God, each holding to its respective gifts from God, and each accountable to God.
We affirm that the Jewish people today are in continuation with biblical Israel and are thankful for the vitality of Jewish faith and thought. We see Jews and Christians, together with all people of living faiths, as God's partners, working in mutual respect and cooperation for justice, peace, and reconciliation.” (World Council of Churches, 1988)

A Statement of the Texas Conference of Churches: Jewish-Christian Relations, 1982

The Texas Conference of Churches is an association of the most significant religious governing body in Texas, including twelve Protestant denominations and fourteen dioceses of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church, totaling forty-nine groups. In 1982, they created a statement that said the following:

In issuing this statement, it is the hope of the Texas Conference of Churches to encourage and promote this latest movement of the Spirit of God in our times. This statement is intended as a basis of discussion between Christians and Jews. We hope, too, that it will lead us into a renewed relationship with the Jews, one characterized by both dialogue and shared witness to the world.

I. Judaism as a living faith

A. We acknowledge with both respect and reverence that Judaism is a living faith and that Israel's call and covenant are still valid and operative today. We reject the position that the covenant between the Jews and God was dissolved with the coming of Christ. Our conviction is grounded in the teaching of Paul in Romans, chapters 9-11, that God's gift and call are irrevocable.

B. The Jewish people today possess their own unique call and mission before God and their covenant. They are called to faithfulness in fulfilling the command to witness to the world of the holiness of God's Name (Ex. 3:15, 9:16).

II. Relationship between the two covenants

A. The Christian covenant grew out of and is an extension of the Hebrew covenant. We Christians cannot understand ourselves or our relationship to God without a thorough knowledge of Judaism. "Thou bearest not the root, but the root thee" (Rom. 11:18).

B. Jews and Christians share a common calling as God's covenant people. While we differ as to the precise nature of the covenant, we share a common history and experience of God's redemptive presence in history. Both Jews and Christians are called to faithfulness to the covenant as they understand it." (Texas Conference of Churches 1982)

Declaration of the Belgian Protestant Council on Relations Between Judaism & Christianity, 1967

"When we study the mystery of the church, it becomes evident that the church as a community of the disciples of Jesus Christ is intimately linked to the Jewish people who are of Abraham's stock. The church confesses that all of those who have faith in Christ are Abraham's sons by faith. In fact, the apostle Paul teaches that those previously separated from Israel by the Torah have obtained full citizenship through Christ (Eph 2:12-13). They have been incorporated with the people of God and have become co-citizens with the saints and members of the family of God (Eph 2:19-20). Therefore, both are now heirs to the promise, the son who received the Torah and those who received the faith of Abraham, who for that reason may be called the father of both. That is how the church, linked to Israel, has become a part of the single people of God.

God, namely, has chosen the people of Israel from among all the nations of the earth, that it may be to Him a precious people (Dt 7:6; 10:15; 14:2)

Several times in the course of their history, however, the Hebrews abandoned the Eternal One and followed other gods. But God has always manifested His fidelity toward His people by keeping a remnant of them for life (Is 37:4, 2 Kgs 19:4). He preserved a remnant that did not bend a knee before idols and that remained true to God or that returned. This remnant had, and still has, to fulfill a special task in God's plan of salvation and must proclaim the glory of God among the nations (Is 66:18-19, Mi 5:6), so that these will come to adore the God of Israel together with Israel (1 Kgs 8:41-43; Is 2:2-4; Mi 4:1; Zach 2: 10-12).

The church confesses that in Jesus Christ, the Promise is fulfilled and that it must be realized in the world. The apostle Paul designates as remnant those Jews who came to believe in Jesus Christ and through those mediation salvation is actually given to the nations, without however denying Israel the right to call itself Israel or, just as acceptable, to remain the unique people of God (Rom 9:27, 11:5), without transferring the name of Israel to the nations. In fact, God has not rejected His people; Israel remains the people of God, the Beloved on account of the fathers (Rom 11:1, 28-29).

There is only one people of God, the holy people of Israel. The "remnant" represents Israel, and so Israel in its totality continues to be the people of God, precisely because a remnant has converted. It is the part for the whole.

The church's claim to be the sole, new Israel of God can in no way be based on the Bible. In this respect, too, we must express ourselves in carefully nuanced terms. It is Christ who made the two, Jew and non-Jew, one single person by breaking down the wall of separation and destroying the enmity that had arisen between them because Israel was separated from the nations as by a girdle through the Torah and precepts (Eph 2:14-16).

Neither in the scriptures nor in the apostolic writings is there a break between "old" and "new".

"New" means the "accomplishment", "fulfillment", or "actualization" of that which already is in existence. What is new is this: a single people of God, Israel and the church, begins to walk toward realization of the promises of the word of God (Torah, Prophets, Writings, Apostolic Writings) in regards to Israel and the nations." (Croner, 193-196)

Reflections on the Problem 'Church-Israel', issued by the Central Board of the Union of Evangelical Churches in Switzerland, 1977

Reflections on "Church-Israel

I. THE PEOPLE OF GOD'S COVENANT

Has God rejected his people? By no means" (Rom. 1:11). The people of the Old Testament of which present day Judaism considers itself the heir, is still in existence and lives partly again in the Land of its Fathers this in spite of many attempts at its destruction and in spite of its own aspirations at assimilation. This fact earnestly reminds the Church of its duty to be concerned with this people. This duty, which is based upon what Paul calls "the mystery of Israel' is independent of the existence of the State, it confronts the Church permanently.

We state the following points:

1. According to the witness of the Old and New Testaments, God called the People of Israel to be his covenanted people. This election is but a free choice of grace, i.e. is not based upon any quality which Israel might possess in advantage over other peoples. The object of the election is to bear witness to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the face of the world and to serve him. According to Gen. 12:3, God will thereby let his blessing come upon all nations. This alone constitutes the specific character of the people of Israel. There is no biological explanation for this specificity.

2. This covenant relationship should become manifest in the whole life of this people. This intention conforms to the will of God "to become flesh and dwell among us", and "to let his kingdom come to us", and "to let his will be done in heaven and on earth." This intention has finally become fully realized in Christ Jesus—a Jew.

3. Indeed the Jewish people all through its history has often broken the covenant and failed to fulfill God's will. Yet this does not annul God's fidelity to the covenant. Nor does the non-recognition of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ by the majority of the Jews repeal the covenant promise given to the Jewish people according to Rom. 9-11.

4. Because God has not rejected his people, there is no question that the Church has taken the place of Israel as "the new people of God", Although the Church, already in the New Testament, applied to herself several promises made to the Jewish people she does not supersede the covenant people, Israel. Much rather do Israel and the Church stand side by side and belong together in several ways, while being at the same time separate on essentials. It should be important for us, Christians, to recognize what links us to the Jews and what separates us from them. We are conscious that there are deliberately different views on this point within the church. (Croner, 198-202)

Towards Renovation of the Relationship of Christian and Jews: The Synod of the Protestant Church of the Rhineland, 1980

Thou bearest not the root, but the root thee (Rom. 11:18b)

1. According to its "Message to the Congregations concerning the Dialogue between Christians and Jews" (12 January 1978) the Synod of the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland accepts the historical necessity of attaining a new relationship of the church to the Jewish people.

2. The church is brought to this by four factors:

The recognition of Christian co-responsibility and guilt for the Holocaust -- the defamation, persecution and murder of the Jews in the Third Reich.
The new biblical insights concerning the continuing significance of the Jewish people within the history of God (e.g. Rom. 9-11), which have been attained in connection with the struggle of the Confessing Church.
The insight that the continuing existence of the Jewish people, its return to the Land of Promise, and also the foundation of the state of Israel, are signs of the faithfulness of God towards his people (cf. the study "Christians and Jews" III, 2-3).
The readiness of Jews, in spite of the Holocaust, to (engage in) encounter, common study and cooperation.

3. The Synod welcomes the study "Christians and Jews" of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) and the supplementary and more precise "Theses on the Renewal of the Relationship of Christians and Jews" of the Committee "Christians and Jews" of the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland. The Synod receives both thankfully and recommends to all congregations that the study and the theses be made the starting point of an intensive work on Judaism and the foundation of a new consciousness of the relationship of the church to the Jewish people.

4. In consequence, the Synod declares:

We confess with dismay the co-responsibility and guilt of German Christendom for the Holocaust (cf. Thesis I).
We confess thankfully the "Scriptures" (Luke 24:32-45; I Cor. 15:3f.), our Old Testament, to be the common foundation for the faith and work of Jews and Christians (cf. Thesis II).
We confess Jesus Christ the Jew, who as the Messiah of Israel is the Savior of the world and binds the peoples of the world to the people of God (cf. Thesis III).
We believe the permanent election of the Jewish people as the people of God and realize that through Jesus Christ the church is taken into the covenant of God with his people (cf. Thesis IV).
We believe with the Jews that the unity of righteousness and love characterizes God's work of salvation in history. We believe with the Jews that righteousness and love are the commands of God for our whole life. As Christians we see both rooted and grounded in the work of God with Israel and in the work of God through Jesus Christ (cf. Thesis V).
We believe that in their respective calling, Jews and Christians are witnesses of God before the world and before each other. Therefore we are convinced that the church may not express its witness towards the Jewish people as it does its mission to the peoples of the world (cf. Thesis vi).
Therefore we declare:

Throughout centuries the word "new" has been used in biblical exegesis against the Jewish people: the new covenant was understood in contrast to the old covenant, the new people of God as replacement of the old people of God. This disrespect to the permanent election of the Jewish people and its condemnation to non-existence marked Christian theology, the preaching and work of the church again and again right to the present day. Thereby, we have made ourselves guilty also of the physical elimination of the Jewish people.

Therefore, we want to perceive the unbreakable connection of the New Testament with the Old Testament in a new way, and learn to understand the relationship of the "old" and "new" from the standpoint of the promise: in the framework of the given promise, the fulfilled promise and the confirmed promise. "New" means therefore no replacement of the "old". Hence we deny that the people of Israel has been rejected by God or that it has been superseded by the church.

As we repent and convert, we begin to discover the common confession and witness of Christians and Jews:
We both confess and witness God as the creator of heaven and earth, and know that we live our everyday life in the world blessed by the same God by means of the blessing of Aaron.
We both confess and witness the common hope in a new heaven and a new earth and the spiritual power of this messianic hope for the witness and work of Christians and Jews for justice and peace in the world. (The Synod of the Protestant Church of the Rhineland, 1980)

Declaration of the Council of Churches in The Netherlands, on Persistent Antisemitism, intended for Dutch Christians and Churches, 1981

OUR TIE WITH THE JEWISH PEOPLE:

(a) God's Unfailing Faithfulness to the Jewish People

The promises which the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has made to the Jewish people have never been revoked by their God, who is our God, too. Nor did God ever recall the covenant which He, through Moses, had made with them. We Christians call this covenant—by a term which has occasioned much misunderstanding—the "old covenant." This covenant was not abolished or replaced by the "new covenant" in and through the coming of Jesus Christ. Jesus himself states emphatically the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets (Mt 5:17). Paul wrote about those Jews who did not recognize the Messiah in Jesus: "As regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:28f). The apostle even emphasizes the advantage of Jews, for they "are entrusted with the oracles of God" (Rom 3:2).

Unfortunately, this enduring love of God for the Jewish people has often been forgotten or even denied by Christians in the past. Wrongly, Jews were spoken about as if God had rejected them as His own people. Wrongly, too, time and again the great suffering which this people has experienced during the centuries has been interpreted by Christian tradition as deserved punishment from the hand of God, instead of as culpable work by men. Wrongly, the evil done to members of this people has been covered up, even excused.

Through the shock of the dreadful persecution and destruction during the Second World War many Christians in various churches have again become aware of and have rediscovered, the central biblical thought of God's unfailing faithfulness to the Jewish people. It is of great importance for Christians to realize that by such awareness, they make a choice. In the New Testament, texts are to be found violently criticizing the doings of Jews, but the issue is always a dispute and conflict between those Jews who did and those who did not believe in Jesus. We Christians of the twentieth century, who have seen the evil such texts have brought about, cannot and must not simply fall back on them and use them, as if during two thousand years of church history nothing had happened.

(b) The Calling of the Gentiles

Gentile Christians are grafted onto the already existing Jewish trunk (Rom 11:17). We have received a share in the promises which God gave to the people of the Jews. We would therefore cut off ourselves from the life-giving root both individually and as churches if carelessly and indifferently we would pass by the fate of those who originated from that root and are still the ones first called.

Not only must Christians not carelessly and indifferently pass by the fate of Jews. To our shame, we have to admit that in the past, even worse things have happened. By wrongly applying certain biblical texts, by discrimination, Jew-hatred, and pogroms, Christians helped to prepare the way which ultimately resulted in the annihilation camps in Nazi Germany. We are not permitted to forget this dismal history between Christians and Jews. If openly and thoroughly we admit that guilt of the past, we will not minimize even the hidden forms of antisemitism in the present time. What happened is not to happen again. (Croner, 210-213)

In the above statements, I have pulled six church body statements that represent a considerable portion of the Protestant churches. There are many more that time does not allow. To recap, we can see that theologians, scholars, and the central governing bodies both within the Catholic and Protestant traditions, to various degrees, have affirmed the ongoing significance of Israel, the Jewish people, their election, and God's hand in their story. Recognizing the election of the Jewish people is not primarily a dispensational story, nor is the deep voice within the universal church that has identified the permanent election of the Jews dispensational.

Why Did The Church Fathers See This Differently?

This question leads us into somewhat hypothetical territory. We don't know precisely why the church fathers saw this differently, but there are a few ideas that we can discuss. It's also worth noting that many of them did see a future restoration and salvation of the Jews. No one would confuse the church fathers with being supportive of the Jewish people necessarily. Nor did they speak about a future restoration of Israel to the land, but by and large, the church fathers did not believe the Jews were irredeemable, even with the unpalatable rhetoric some of them used against the Jews.

Specifically, Origen, Martyr, and Augustine held out for a future restoration of the Jews. John Chrystostom stands more or less alone in his more vile antisemitic rhetoric, even for the 2nd - 4th century. I don't say that lightly against Chrysostom; Pauline scholar David Rudolph says:

"If we go by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, Chrystostom was antisemitic. The IHRA working definition states, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews." Chrystostom preached to his congregation that "we must hate both them [the Jews] and their synagogue" (Discourses Against Judaizing Christians 1.5.4). The IHRA definition also states that "demonizing" Jews is a form of antisemitism. Chrysostom preached that "the Jews themselves are demons" (Discourses 1.6.3) and "demons dwell in the synagogue, not only in the place itself but also in the souls of the Jews" (Discourses 1.6.6.). By both counts, Chrysostom was antisemitic" (Cantor, 2023)

At the same time, many of the church fathers gave their lives for the gospel, and I believe we can judge their attempts to protect the early church and fight off heresy, despite their rhetoric against the Jews, in a positive light. So, let's now look at some of the ideas behind why their perspective might have been divergent.

From much of the early writings of the church, 135-300 AD, there is a lot of tension in the early church. It is wrestling with its identity and sometimes hostility between its Jewish roots. Jewish Messianic theologian Mark Kizner has said, "There were many followers of Jesus in the second century who believed that "Yeshua-faith was a variety of Judaism, and adherence to that faith required a living relationship to the wider Jewish community." (Cantor, 2023) This tells us that the punitive supersessionism that became codified in church theology through the Patristic and Medieval periods was not universally embraced early on, and the church fathers felt that it needed to be. They could have believed that they needed to sever all connections between the Church and its Jewish roots to protect the early fledgling church.
Another factor is that the early church was birthed on the heels of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. By 70 AD & 135 AD, the second temple and Jerusalem had fallen. It is understandable, in many ways, how the gentile Church Fathers could see this as a permanent judgment on the Jewish people. Even the Jewish rabbi’s believed that this period was a judgment from God. The question, then, is not so much whether it was a judgment but if it was a permanent status for the Jewish people. Or was this another familiar rhythm in Jewish history where the Jews sin, God judges, the Jewish people repent, and then God remembers his covenant and forgives? Here is where I take issue with those who believe this destruction was God's judgment (70 AD & 135 AD) but refuse to apply the same lens to 1948 in the establishment of Israel. I don't think this argument can have it both ways. By every human account, 1948 was more improbable than 70 AD or 135 AD. Building a nation out of scattered rag-tag people is more complex than the Roman Empire destroying this tiny nation. To be consistent, if we are going to say the destruction of Israel was God, then we have also to say the creation of Israel was God. Would God allow the human schemes of man to reestablish the Jewish people back in the land of Israel if his judgment was permanent?
In their working document on the Jews, the Catholic Church has recently said this in regards to the church father issue of Supersessionism, going as far as to basically both negate what the church fathers said in regards to the Jews and to propose a new theological framework of understanding. This statement is significant because of the Catholic Church's great pains in its attempts to interpret the tradition faithfully. "On the part of many of the Church Fathers the so-called replacement theory or supersessionism steadily gained favor until in the Middle Ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the relationship with Judaism: the promises and commitments of God would no longer apply to Israel because it had not recognized Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God, but had been transferred to the Church of Jesus Christ which was now the true 'new Israel', the new chosen people of God. Arising from the same soil, Judaism and Christianity in the centuries after their separation became involved in a theological antagonism which was only to be defused at the Second Vatican Council. With its Declaration "Nostra aetate" (No.4) the Church unequivocally professes, within a new theological framework, the Jewish roots of Christianity. While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ, the Church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel. A replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a Church of the Gentiles and the rejected Synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundations. From an originally close relationship between Judaism and Christianity a long-term state of tension had developed, which has been gradually transformed after the Second Vatican Council into a constructive dialogue relationship. ("The Gifts And Callings", 2015)

Final Thoughts On The Spirit of God Moving

I want to end with one final reflection on the church fathers and the debate about the ongoing relevance of the Jewish people and Israel. Another reason the church fathers might have seen this issue differently is that the Spirit of God might have wanted them to see it exactly how they saw it. This is a challenging idea, and I don't condone many of their statements, but maybe God intentionally closed their eyes to this reality for a purpose. I would submit as a possibility that the Spirit moves us through different eras of God's work, and if we can take Romans 11:25 seriously, there would be a time allotted for the "fullness of the Gentiles to come in." Is it possible that the focus of God's work during this era was bringing the Kingdom to the gentile nations? And possibly, at this stage, it’s connection to Judaism might have been a hinderance to the gospel?

This is not to say that God had no focus on the Jewish people. He has sustained them through 1900 years of persecution and struggle. If you ask their rabbis about this, they will say they have been judged, but now God is showing them mercy and bringing them back to their land. God has caused them to not be assimilated into the nations around them, and they are now back in their ancestral homeland.

What can't be said is that the 3 points we started with are primarily a dispensational position, but a universal church position that has been growing over the last 500 years. This position recognizes:

There would be a return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.
That the election of the Jewish people is permanent and stands as the irrevocable promise between God and the Jewish people, regardless of whether they know Jesus. (This does not guarantee salvation, which only exists within Jesus, but it recognizes election as promised to the patriarchs)
There will be a mass salvatory event where the veil is lifted from the eyes of the Jewish people, and they will nationally recognize their messiah.

I have laid out nine prominent non-dispensational theologians and many more non-dispensational church body official statements from the Catholic and Protestant traditions validating these ideas. What we can see is that starting 500 years ago, a perspective on the Jewish people and Israel within the Church started to shift. It is like a rolling wave of change by the Spirit through the Church.

How do we judge this change?

Do we say that the early church fathers are infallible? Were they utterly pure from error, both intentional and unintentional error? By doing so, do we fall into the Appeal to Age Fallacy, in which an idea is the most correct just because it is the oldest? (This is without challenging the idea that the church fathers were fully in alignment with NT scripture, which many do challenge this idea) There is protection in tradition and orthodoxy, but neither is inherently free from error. Can we really say the Church cannot realize its mistake and repent?

On the other hand, can we say this new work of God is not pure because it doesn't exactly line up with the early tradition of the Church? A more faithful way of seeing this might be to look at the fruit of what Supersessionism has brought forth. In every church statement above and hundreds more was the confession that the Church's theology on the Jews has caused pogroms, inquisitions, crusades, and finally had a hand in the Holocaust. This confession is not one birthed out of postmodernism or liberalism; this is the confession of the realization of error followed by Godly repentance. When you combine the ungodly fruit of this theological position with the prompting of the Spirit's revelation through the last 500 years, a clear picture emerges.

I would argue that the Spirit has been tilling the heart of the church for the last 500 years, preparing the ground for what was coming and what continues to come. God's eyes have turned back to his irrevocable covenant with Israel. Ezekiel 36,37 looms in the valley of the dry bones, where the church eagerly awaits the spirit of God. God is breathing life back into the dry bones of Israel and we can hope over the veil from the Jewish people's hearts will be removed so that the spirit may come and they will see their Messiah.

This does not mean modern-day Israel is free from error or criticism. It does not mean that the Jews are perfect. It does not mean we have to be anti-Palestinian. It means none of these things. We can and should be pro-jew and pro-arab. They are not mutually exclusive positions. Additionally, evil is evil, regardless of whether a Jew or Gentile does it. Election for God’s purpose does not guarantee salvation. The Jews and modern Israel are imperfect like the rest of us, especially those outside of Messiah. Equally, one does not need to hold to any form of dispensationalism to believe in God’s election and covenant keeping character with the Jewish people.

What all of this means is that God has not forsaken his covenants with Israel and the Jewish people. How we see God interacting on behalf of Israel and the Jewish people is a witness to the world. It says something significant about the character of God. What God does on behalf of Israel, God does for his own name sake. He remembers His covenants, His oaths, and His promises. (Ps 105: 8-11) This is exceedingly good news for the Church. The God who does not sleep or slumber on behalf of Israel also watches over us.

References

Barth, Karl. 1994. Church Dogmatics. #166.: Presbyterian Publishing Corporation.

Brown, Shaun C. 2021. George Lindbeck and The Israel of God: Scripture, Ecclesiology, and Ecumenism. N.p.: Springer International Publishing.

Calvin, John. 2014. Romans: Commentary and Translation. N.p.: Beloved Publishing LLC.

Cantor, Ron. 2023. “Reconciling the Antisemitism of the Church Fathers with Their Devotion to Messiah – Kesher Journal.” Kesher Journal. https://www.kesherjournal.com/article/reconciling-the-antisemitism-of-the-church-fathers-with-their-devotion-to-messiah/.

Croner, Helga B., ed. 1985. More Stepping Stones to Jewish-Christian Relations: An Unabridged Collection of Christian Documents, 1975-1983. N.p.: Paulist Press.

Edwards, Jonathan. 1974. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. N.p.: Banner of Truth Trust.

Fowl, Stephen E., ed. 1997. The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Readings. N.p.: Wiley.

“The Gifts and Callings Are Irrevocable.” 2015. "The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable" (Rom 11:29). http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo-crre/documenti-della-commissione/en.html.

Goldman, Shalom. 2019. “Reinhold Niebuhr's Zionism.” Tablet Magazine. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/reinhold-niebuhrs-zionism.

“History.” n.d. World Council of Churches. Accessed July 16, 2024. https://www.oikoumene.org/about-the-wcc/history.

Hodges, Charles. 1981. Systematic Theology, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 3. N.p.: Hendrickson Academic; Reprinted 1981 edition.

House, H. W. 1998. Israel - The Land and the People: An Evangelical Affirmation of God's Promises. N.p.: Kregel Publications.

Lindbeck, George. 1997. “The Gospel's Uniqueness.” Modern Theology 13 (4): 441.

McDermott, Gerald R., ed. 2016. The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel and the Land. N.p.: InterVarsity Press.

Murray, John. 1997. Epistle to the Romans. N.p.: Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Paul VI, Pope. 1965. “Nostra Aetate.” The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html.

Ryle, J. C. 2006. Are You Ready for the End of Time? N.p.: Christian Focus Publications.

Soulen, R. K. 1996. The God of Israel and Christian theology. N.p.: Fortress Press.

Soulen, R. K., ed. 2004. Abraham's Promise. N.p.: Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Spurgeon, Charles M. 1864. “Charles H. Spurgeon and the Nation of Israel.” The Spurgeon Archive. http://www.romans45.org/spurgeon/misc/eschat2.htm.

The Synod of the Protestant Church of the Rhineland. 1980. “Towards Renovation of the Relationship of Christians and Jews.” https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/protestant/EvChFRG1980.htm.

Texas Conference of Churches. 1982. “Jewish-Christian Relations.” Jewish-Christian Relations. https://www.jcrelations.net/statements/statement/the-churches-and-the-jewish-people-toward-a-new-understanding.html.

World Council of Churches. 1988. “The Churches and the Jewish People: Toward a New Understanding.” https://www.jcrelations.net/statements/statement/the-churches-and-the-jewish-people-toward-a-new-understanding.html.

Christopher Kuehl

A Non-Dispensational Case For Christian Zionism and The Permanent Election of the Jews - A Historical Reflection

Protestant Tradition

Theologians and Scholars

Official Church Body Statements:

Protestant Church Body Statements:

Why Did The Church Fathers See This Differently?

FOLLOW

PRESENT WiTNESS

A Non-Dispensational Case For Christian Zionism and The Permanent Election of the Jews - A Historical Reflection

Protestant Tradition

Theologians and Scholars

Official Church Body Statements:

Protestant Church Body Statements:

Why Did The Church Fathers See This Differently?

Election Outside of Jesus?

Jew & Gentile in The One New Man

FOLLOW

PRESENT WiTNESS