The Flaw In The Heart Of The Crystal
Few authors have had as much influence on my theological perspective concerning Israel and the Jewish people as Dr. Kendall Soulen. He articulates and clarifies many of the systematic theological difficulties that face the supersessionist (replacement theology) camp. While they end up on different ends of the spectrum regarding their theological positions concerning Israel, Soulen's expansive writing reminds me of NT Wright.
Dr. Kendall Soulen is a professor of systematic theology at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University. He earned his PhD from Yale, served as president of the American Theological Society in 2017, and is also the president of the Society for Post-Supersessionist Theology.
In his book The God of Israel and Christian Theology, Soulen proposes that replacement theology raises problems of a specifically theological nature that must be addressed through systematic theological reflection. He states,
"Supersessionism is a specifically theological problem because it threatens to render the existence of the Jewish people a matter of indifference to the God of Israel. In this way, Supersessionism introduces a profound note of incoherence into the heart of Christian reflection about God. While it may be possible to imagine a god who is indifferent to the existence of Jewish people, it is impossible so to imagine the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, the God of Israel. If Christians nevertheless claim to worship the God of Israel while teaching God's indifference toward the people Israel, they are engaging in a massive theological contradiction. Moreover, they throw the credibility of the Christian confession itself into doubt. If the God of Israel is ultimately indifferent to the existence of the Jewish people, how seriously can one take God's engagement with the rest of creation?" (Soulen 1996, #4)
In this statement, Soulen articulates something I have pondered for many years. Stated simply, if the God of Israel would forsake Israel, what guarantee do I have that He would not forsake me? The positive articulation of this idea is that the more enduring I see God's care of the Jewish people, the more enduring I see His hand over my life and that of my family's life. The story of Israel and the Jewish people is a metaphor for the individual believer's life. Thematically, we can see all of the elements of the spiritual life played out in the nation of Israel. The story of Israel is my story, and it is your story. With this focus on our Christian meta-narrative, Soulen states that it is only through the telling of the Christian story in a faithful way that it becomes free of the "incoherence of supersessionism."
The Missing Link in the Canonical Narrative
With this in mind, Soulen aims at the root of how the church sees itself and the story it has found itself in, the Christian canonical narrative. His path to the canonical narrative is not granular; he is looking at the root of how the church sees its own story but is doing so from a 30,000-foot view. His essential claim in this book is that to "overcome the legacy of Supersessionism in Christian theology, we must focus attention on how Christians have understood the theological and narrative unity of the Christian Bible as a whole. This task is facilitated by the concept of a canonical narrative. A canonical narrative is an interpretive instrument that provides a framework for reading the Christian Bible as a theological and narrative unity." (Soulen 1996, #13) In layman's terms, a canonical narrative is important because it allows a reader (us) to read a series of individual books, poetry, apocalyptic, and historical literature (the Bible, Old Testament & New Testament) coherently and consistently through a meta-narrative. The canonical narrative is almost a cliff-note version or the thematic Rosetta Stone to interpret scripture coherently. It is essential to point out that Soulen is not aiming at the biblical canon itself but at how we, as the church, have understood the canonical narrative, which is the framework or meta-narrative for interpreting scripture. Traditionally, the standard canonical narrative involves four simple parts:
creation-for-consumption (the creation story in Genesis for the purpose or relationship with God),
the fall (the introduction of sin and the need for redemption),
redemption in Christ (our salvation hope), and
final consumption (reigning forever with the Lord).
These four parts create the standard model through which the church has historically seen itself. Soulen evaluates this model through three pairs of pivotal historical Christian thinkers: Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyon, Immanuel Kant and Freidrich Schleiermacher, and Karl Barth and Karl Rahner. I won't go into these historical thinkers in depth, but Soulen's analysis is phenomenal, and I recommend getting the book if you want to dive in further.
The problem with the standard canonical narrative, according to Soulen, is multifaceted. At the deepest level, it makes "God's identity as the God of Israel largely indecisive for shaping theological conclusions about God's enduring purpose for creation." (Soulen 1996, #15) Kendel strikes to the heart of the matter when he says, "The model renders the center of the Hebrew Scriptures-the eternal covenant between the God of Israel and the Israel of God-ultimately indecisive for understanding how God's work as Consummator and as Redeemer engage creation in lasting and universal ways." (Soulen 1996, #16) This point is critical to understand. He is saying that by removing the covenant fidelity of God to Israel in our meta-narrative of understanding scripture, we harm how we understand God as a consummator and redeemer in our own story. The meta-narrative for understanding our Christian story is vital to how we read scripture and understand where scripture points. Another way we can think of a canonical narrative is by considering the categories on Netflix. Netflix categories help us see what the totality of Netflix is about. By having categories like Drama, Comedy, Documentary, Action, etc, we can see the themes of Netflix and understand what Netflix is. If we just pulled out the Action category we would not be able to fully appreciate what Netflix is. This analogy is not perfect because you can still enjoy Netflix without the Action category. Still, you won't have a complete picture of what Netflix is and would have no way to synthesize the action scenes and movies without the Action category. By default, you would essentially be anti-Action or Action-forgetful because you have no Action category in your version of Netflix. Soulen claims that our standard canon is Israel-forgetful in its structure, leading to a default latent Supersessionism in its design. By not including God's covenantal history and promises to Israel in our canonical narrative, we have an incomplete picture of God and his enduring faithfulness to Israel and ourselves. The standard canon (creation, fall, redemption, consummation) is Genesis 1 - Genesis 3 and then skips everything until the gospels and Revelation. Mysteriously, there is no emphasis whatsoever on what occurs in Genesis 4 - Malachi, which is almost entirely where the story of Israel takes place.
On top of the default Suppersessionistic structure of the standard canon, Soulen highlights a few other cracks that appear. In my view, one of the most legitimate criticisms that replacement theology comes under, whether you are evaluating it at a 30,000-foot view like Soulen is here, or you are dividing the text into the grammatical and hermeneutical layers of the NT, is that Supersessionism inherently leans into Christian Gnosticism. Christian Gnosticism is a common criticism from the non-supersessionism camp, and Soulen makes the point here. He states, "As conceived by the standard canonical model, God's action in Jesus Christ entails deliverance-not indeed from the work and realm of creation-but, nevertheless from a history in which God's relationship with the Jewish people plays a central and enduring role. This is not a Gnosticism of being but of history." (Soulen 1996, #16) To paraphrase, he is saying that the standard model of Jesus's work does not deliver the Jewish people the way God promised, but it does deliver Jesus from the enduring and central role that the Jewish people have played in covenantal history.
This charge of Christian Gnosticism is similar to the criticism that the Suppersessionists face when they attempt to apply the terms "Israel" and "Jew" to the church in ways that scripture does not. Assuming that literal, specific OT Covenants are somehow absorbed into Christ in some mysterious, non-literal, Hindu/Platonic way that cancels their original meaning lends itself in similar ways to the charge that the canonical narrative ends up separating the God of Israel from the people of Israel.
His final point before we get into his proposition is that one of the costs of the standard canonical narrative is that it "fosters and supports a triumphalistic posture towards the Jewish people." (Soulen 1996, #17) On this point, I heartily agree. In both the historical witness of the church and what is observable in the modern world, it seems undeniable that the outcome of Supersessionism is always pride towards the natural tree of Israel. In Romans 11:18, the church is warned not to believe that we are superior to the natural tree, yet this seems to be the unshakeable reality of Supersessionism, and we have 1800 years of church history that proves the point.
One of the aspects that I appreciate about Soulen is that he recognizes that there is much to appreciate about the standard canonical narrative. Far from trying to burn it to ashes, he agrees that the narrative gives "powerful expression to the church's central confession: the God of Hebrew Scriptures acted in Jesus of Nazareth for all the world." (Soulen 1996, #109) Yet he also reveals how this narrative, as expressed, is supersessionist doctrinally and structurally. Doctrinally because, the model "depicts carnal Israel's role in the economy of redemption as essentially transient by virtue of spiritualizing and universalizing impetus of God's salvific will. Structurally, the model renders God's identity as the God of Israel largely indecisive for shaping theological conclusions about how God's works as Consummator and Redeemer engages creation in universal and enduring ways." (Soulen 1996, #109) With this in mind, we will now visit Soulen's proposed solution. He suggests that the focus should be to grasp a firmer theological unity of the Bible in a manner that does not "nullify the faithfulness of God" (Rom 3:3).
Surprised by An Other
I was surprised by how Soulen makes his case in the following chapters. The tip of his proposal is that "Christians should acknowledge that God's history with Israel and the nations is the permanent and enduring medium of God's work as the Consummator of human creation, and therefore it is also the permanent and enduring context of the gospel about Jesus." (Soulen 1996, #110) In other words, God's history with these two distinct peoples is the permanent tapestry in which God brings about the gospel message. What I find so captivating about Soulen's position is how he approaches two topics: Blessing as the primary action of God and the idea of an economy of mutual Blessing and mutual dependence between Jew & Gentile. Soulen recognizes that when God carved Abraham and thus the Jewish people out of the nations, God was essentially creating two groups (Jew & Non-Jew or Gentile) when previously there was only one group (Non-Jew). There would be no Gentile without the Jew, and this is by God's design. This distinction was intentional so that God could elect a people for himself who would then be a blessing to the nations. Soulen makes the case that there is something about the interactions between Jew & Gentile that God intends to be a mutual blessing to one another as two separate parts. God created Israel to be a blessing to the nations, not so that the nations would become Israel. Essentially, God has divinely woven Jew & Gentile together in a way that recognizes their God-created differences and also their design for oneness together. It's hard not to acknowledge a similar pattern when God created the woman from the man's rib. In this male and female creation paradigm of oneness and separate, we see many similarities between Jew and Gentile.
Blessing Triumphs Over Sin
Soulen's central point is that our collective sin and redemption are secondary issues and that the God of the Old Testament is a God in which Blessing is the primary function. This thought will rile the feathers of those who like to self-flagellate themselves and see the world entirely through a sin frame. Soulen is not discrediting our collective need for redemption from sin, but he suggests that God's work as redeemer comes from a secondary place, after His desire to bless. "Construed in this way, the canon's overarching plot revolves chiefly not around an "economy of redemption" contingent on sin but rather around an antecedent economy of consummation based on the Lord's Blessing." (Soulen 1996, #115) This idea reminds me of the interplay between original sin and original glory. We had only original glory before the fall, but after the fall, we exist in original sin with the need for redemption. Is God's primary role redeemer then, or is it, as Soulen suggests, God as the One whose primary function is to bring Blessing with redemption as a secondary action that follows His purpose of Blessing and Consummating humanity?
This thought has the grand potential to change how we see God's plan for choosing a family in which to bless the nations. As Soulen states: "By electing Abraham, Sarah, and their descendants, God inaugurates a new economy of difference and mutual Blessing that encompasses the whole future of humankind, an economy to be enacted between God and the households of creation and between the households of creation and one another. The heart of the new economy is the covenant between the God of Israel and the Israel of God." (Soulen 1996, #122) God has chosen to love humanity through the Jewish people and has brought His desire to bless all the nations through this vehicle.
How God chooses to bless this family of God is threefold: people, Torah, and land. When it comes to the Blessing of people, Soulen notes that the Jewish theologian Michael Wyshogrod has stated, "There is something scandalous about a God who elects a carnal family. Yet by choosing to be identified as the God of a particular family and by promising to sustain and care for it over time, God, in fact, makes the human condition God's own in a particular, deep, and irrevocable way." (Soulen 1996, #123) God's decision to join humanity through one family, in particular, has suffered much criticism as merely divine racism. Another, more generous way to view God's decision is that He makes himself known through the most fundamental aspect of our humanity: family. Secondly, most people in the West see the Torah as a list of rules and regulations. They conclude that there is something rigid and unyielding and is a source of legalism. In this regard, Soulen makes what I believe is a better and more mature case for the Torah, and rather than being a "bulwark against sin, it is a medium for blessing." (Soulen 1996, #123) Thirdly, people get uncomfortable with the idea of land given to a people, and by God, no less; it is somehow even more indecent. Some Christians, particularly of the replacement theology camp, believe that all the covenants of God find their yes in Jesus in some mysterious way that dissolves these covenants. I think they make this error in part because they see the covenants only as a redemptive utility that ends in Christ and not as a medium for God's eternal Blessing to the Jewish people and, thus, the nations. If your understanding of Israel and the Jewish people is based only on God's redemption and not on God's Blessing, then you could miss the significance of God tying himself to the land through this family and doing so for the primary purpose of blessing them.
To Be Gentile Is, By Definition, To Be Other
Soulen doesn't hold back when he further digs into what being a "Gentile" really is. In short, to be a Gentile is to be the "other" than the people of Israel. How can this make any sense? It's like God ripped the earth into two, and on one side, you have these people of God, and by nature of secluding this one group, God has created this second group that, by definition, is not the selected group. But far from being a bug in the system, Soulen fights for the idea that this is a core feature of how God has chosen to interact with humanity. In this context, Soulen asks,
"Who are the Gentiles in light of God's election of Israel? To be a Gentile is to be the other of Israel and, as such, an indispensable partner in a single economy of Blessing that embraces the whole human family. This does not mean that Israel alone will bless the nations or the nations alone will bless Israel. God is the ultimate source of Blessing for both. But God blesses both as the God of Israel, and hence in the context of the history that unfolds on the basis of the distinction between Israel and all the families of the earth." (Soulen 1996, #1235)
We can look at the male and female distinctions for a visual understanding. What is a woman? By definition, it is a human that is not a man. You would not have one without the other. Yet both are destined to live and form reality together in mutual Blessing and inner dependence on one another. The above idea brings new light to what Paul says when he states: For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. (Eph. 2:14-16) Understanding what Ephesians is saying more fully is essential because it lives in tension with other ideas in scripture, which we will explore in different content.
Even as Soulen traces this thread of distinction through all of scripture, he recognizes that this thread is malleable. From the very start, Ishmael was circumcised, Joseph married a Gentile, Ruth came as a Gentile, and a mixed multitude left with Israel out of Egypt. There is richness and mystery to these realities. Soulen makes the case that everything God does for Israel is linked to God's care for the nations. He takes great pains to stress that "gentile identity is depicted positively in light of an economy of mutual blessing that ties the nations to God's covenant with Israel." (Soulen 1996, #129) It is as Ruth said: "Where you go, I will go. Your people will be my people, and your God, my God. (Ru 1:16) Soulen closes this section by stating, "God's consummating work engages the one human family in its covenantal identity as Jew and Gentile, as Israel and the nations, and in this way engages the human creature and human creation as a whole." (Soulen 1996, #134) This distinction between Jew and Gentile remains a common theme throughout Soulons book. He sees it as essential to how God works through humanity. Trying to remove the carnal aspects of this distinction would be as devastating as removing the male and female distinctions.
Why would God create this distinction? Soulen makes the case that "Blessing is by its very nature something imparted from one to another. As such, Blessing presupposes difference. When difference disappears, so does the possibility of genuine Blessing." (Soulen 1996, #134) This is a profound thought. Could God have created this separation so that we would learn how to bless one another? He goes on to say, "Jewish and gentile identity are not basically antithetical or even "separate but equal" ways of relating to God. They are, instead, two mutually dependent ways of participating in a single divine blessing oriented towards the final consummation of the human family." (Soulen 1996, #134) This idea feels like a pattern that we see throughout scripture. Again, this harkens back to the husband and wife idea where two become one yet remain separate and require each other in inner dependent ways. There is something that both Jews and Gentiles need from each other, and God has designed us to discover this together. Soulen drives this point by evaluating what goes wrong when we don't recognize this distinction as intentional from God but, worse, choose to let it create jealousy within us. A form of envy and jealousy seems to be at the heart of all Supersessionism, and Soulen uses the story of Joseph's jealous brothers to highlight what often happens in the Gentile camps. Yet when we do this, we do our own story a disservice because "God's special love for Israel is the guarantee that God has elected the whole human family." (Soulen 1996, #137)
Soulen ends his thoughts with a gospel description and provides a better way to understand the canonical narrative. He states: "The gospel is good news about the God of Israel's coming reign, which proclaims in Jesus's life, death, and resurrection the victorious fidelity to the work of consummation, that is, to fullness of mutual Blessing as the outcome of God's economy with Israel, the nations, and all creation." (Soulen 1996, #157) A claim that Soulen makes throughout his book is that the God of Israel is the "narrow gate" in which all must go through, and I agree with him. This reality is inescapable.
If you have made it this far, I commend you. Soulen's book is deceptively small but packs a considerable punch, and I found myself having to read ideas three or four times. His mind is marvelous and, at times, daunting. He has done an excellent service for the church in the ideas he introduces, and I think he makes excellent headway so the church can see itself more truthfully regarding its Jewish and Gentile distinctions. I want to dive further into some of the more sticky realities between believing Jews and Gentiles, but I am not going to do so in this article. I want to close with a comment that Soulen makes regarding the church: "Traditionally, the church has understood itself as a spiritual fellowship in which the carnal distinction between Jew and Gentile no longer applies. The church has declared itself a third and final "race" that transcends and replaces the difference between Israel and the nations. While the historical journey that ultimately issued in this misunderstanding is a complex one, its basic trajectory can be formulated easily enough. What began in Jesus's name as Israel's hospitality towards Gentiles as Gentiles, ended as Gentile's inhospitality towards Jews as Jews." (Soulen 1996, #167) In other words, what started as an open hand of reconciliation by Israel through Jesus to the Gentiles has ended in a close fist by the Gentiles towards the Jews. This hard truth is nothing, if not a bitter pill.
If the church wants to escape the Suppersessionism structure of its own creation, it must reorient its thinking toward itself, the Jewish people, and the God of Israel. This is a complex task, but it is a worthy one. In further writing and content, we will examine the dynamic between Jews and Gentiles more closely. In the meantime, I highly recommend picking up Soulen's book, The God of Israel and Christian Theology.
References
Soulen, R. K. 1996. The God of Israel and Christian theology. N.p.: Fortress Press.