Israel, Theology and Politics: Some Questions and Remarks

The conflict in the Middle-East concerning Israel and the Palestinians is a difficult topic to discuss. The history of the conflict is so complex that it is hard to know what one must think; people often forget that and jump to conclusions. Then there are others that have intimate, first-hand experience of the situation, on either side, and this also forcefully informs their opinions. Something that is only natural. How to proceed? At minimum, we need to realize a couple of things.

From a theological perspective, a big problem is the mixing of theological and political arguments. Often it is assumed that the nation of Israel of today is theologically the same as the nation of Israel as described in the Old and New Testament. The nation of today is defended and justified with verses from the Old Testament. But is that really a correct decision? This question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, for the problem is way more complicated. One issue that underlies this question is how one should, theologically, sort out the relationship between Israel and the Church. Or should we even speak of Israel and the Church? Maybe we should say ‘the Jewish people’ and the Church instead? And sorting out this relationship is not an easy thing! We must distinguish, however, between theology and politics. Or our vision will be blurred, and we defend political events with theological arguments.

A second issue is the mixing of the fear of stimulating anti-Semitism (in the sense of anti-Jewish sentiments, not in the wider sense) and proper theology. It is often claimed that supersessionism (so-called ‘Replacement Theology’) has historically been responsible for anti-Semitism and violent Jew-hatred. This is at least (!) partly true, but is it also necessarily true for future theology? Let me rephrase that: would a contemporary theology that does not have any specific place for Israel always  lead to anti-Semitism? The answer to that is a simple no. We have a lot of examples of theologies that do not deal with Israel and that see ‘the people of God’ simply as consisting of Christians (a group that obviously also includes Messianic Jews), which do not stimulate anti-Semitism or any sentiments contra Israel. What I mean to say is, a historical argument that supersessionism has led to anti-Semitism is not a properly theological argument, nor is it a strong argument by its own right. A respectful supersessionist theology could give due reverence to the Jewish people and even to Israel. This is not to say that we should not call out any occurrence of anti-Semitism, be it in our theology or in our culture: we must! But as a theological argument it will not do.

I’ve been following some discussions (here, here, and here) on the blog of a former teacher of mine, Anders Gerdmar. These discussions have largely revolved around the place of Israel in systematic theology and supersessionism. In the comments it became quite clear that even those very much opposed to a supersessionist theology cannot, in the end, give Israel a clear and well-defined place in their theologies. David Nystrom asks the right questions in one of his comments (here, scroll down):

What, namely, do we then make of the Jews who don’t believe, the branches which, according to Paul, were broken off? If we, without qualification, see them as equally sharing a part of the covenant (affirming that there only is one) and as included in God’s saving economy, are we not compromising the Church’s eternal claim that salvation is only found through Christ, or more precisely, through faith in Christ? If we, on the other hand, claim that the unbelieving Jews really have been cut off and are not part of the covenant any longer, have we not then just made a full circle back to supersessionist theology?

This is precisely the questions I have been asking myself for a few years. The responses to this questions were not satisfactory (judge for yourself). In the end of the day, the ones who do see an important, even crucial, place for Israel do not want to go as far as to say that Jews will get saved without believing in Christ. What then, I ask, is the point of stating that Israel is still in the covenant? What good is this covenant if it does not include grace? In my eyes this is even a rather serious distortion of Old Testament theology: for there was grace, faith and forgiveness of sins even in the Old covenant.

A lot more can and must be said about this important issue, but I’ll leave it at this for now.