What do you think?
Rate this book
The God of Israel and Christian Theology
With acknowledgment that Christian theology contributed to the persecution and genocide of Jews comes a how to excise the cancer without killing the patient? Kendall Soulen shows how important Christian assertionsthe uniqueness of Jesus, the Christian covenant, the finality of salvation in Christhave been formulated in destructive, supersessionist ways not only in the classical period (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus) and early modernity (Kant and Schleiermacher) but even contemporary theology (Barth and Rahner). Along with this first full-scale critique of Christian supersessionism, Soulen's own constructive proposal regraps the narrative unity of Christian identity and the canon through an original and important insight into the divine-human covenant, the election of Israel, and the meaning of history.
- GenresTheologyOld Testament
208 pages, Paperback
First published June 11, 1996
8 people are currently reading
148 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
February 21, 2020
Criticisms of supersessionism must be anchored in Romans 9-11. Unfortunately, liberals, while rightly condemning the church’s treatment of Jews in the past, tend to posit dual covenants with Israel and the Church. A better criticism of supersessionism acknowledges that God’s call is irrevocable and the church’s future is anchored in God’s covenant to Israel, not the other way around.
Thesis: Christians cannot claim to worship the God of Israel by making God indifferent to Israel (Soulen 4). The question of supersessionism hinges on whether baptized Jews must negate their Jewish heritage in order to be Christians? The post-Constantinian church said yes. The book of Acts appeared to say no.
Israel and Election
Soulen makes the argument that corporate election is just as offensive as “individual election.” What sense does it make for a universal God to elect a minority people? This is the scandal of particularity. Soulen counters by noting that love can’t be merely abstract. A pure “agape” love abstracted from any particularity is meaningless.
This determines whether the church will seek an “abstracted” divinity behind God’s election of Israel. Soulen frames his discussion around what he calls a “canonical narrative,” an understanding of “the inner configurations” and “interrelationships” of the canon (14). All such construals, as in our example of supersessionism, contain their own promises and problems. They have their own “grammar.”
The standard model’s main problem is that it makes God’s dealings with Israel largely irrelevant for how God will deal with creation. Soulen’s main problem with the standard model is that it makes Israel obsolete (29). This involves hermeneutics as well: on the standard model, do you need the Hebrew scriptures to make decisive judgments on how God deals with creation? Take the four points of the standard model:
1) God creates
2) Adam and Eve fall
3) 1st Advent
4) 2nd Advent
All four of these propositions (or if they are stated in propositional format) are true. However, with the exceptions of Genesis 1-3, you can formulate this system without regard to the Hebrew Scriptures. We see this early on with Justin Martyr, who advocates what is sometimes called (fairly or unfairly) replacement theology (Dial. 11).
How biblical is Justin’s Logos-theology? Despite a surface-level similarity with John 1:1, it doesn’t have much biblical support. It is “the principle of divine revelation that sprung forth from the transcendent God” at the moment of creation (35). What it isn’t is the life-giving, creative Word of the Covenant God. To oversimplify, cosmic history replaces salvation history.
Irenaeus’s perspective, on the other hand, is a bit more ambiguous. He championed the unity between the Old Testament and the New, yet Israel still functions like a 5th wheel. Missing from Irenaeus’s account, however, is the center of the Hebrew scriptures: God’s covenant dealings with Israel (45).
Christian Divinity without Jewish Flesh: The Legacies of Kant and Schleiermacher
Schleiermacher saw only three true monotheisms. Of the two, Judaism and Christianity are the better ones. Since Judaism, though, is still committed to non-spiritual things like land and Torah, they can’t fully develop their “God-consciousness.” Judaism and its doctrine of election is too particular.
Schleiermacher’s project removes the inner connection between Judaism and Christianity and leaves only an external relation. If Jesus were truly Jewish, he could never bring about our universal God-consciousness (76).
Consummation at the End of Christendom
Barth and Rahner do well to expose the semignosticism within the classical model, yet they never fully escape gnosticism. Barth begins on a promising note as he replaces Schleiermacher’s “God-consciousness” with “creation and covenant.” Unfortunately, Barth never fully lets the covenant model rescue him.
God’s covenant actions, for Barth, “summon the human creature beyond the dynamism of its natural being” (Soulen 85). Covenant is the internal logic of creation.
Barth goes on to say that Israel’s election is the medium for God’s consummating work in the world. This is a vast improvement over Justin and Irenaeus. Because of God’s fidelity to Israel, we believe he will be faithful to us (89).
Unfortunately, what Barth gives with one hand he takes away with the other. His “Christomonism” swallows up his emphasis on God’s particularity with Israel. Christ isn’t just the center of Barth’s theology. It is the whole field. With the person of Jesus Christ, carnal Israel comes to an end. So far that’s standard covenant theology. Barth then takes it in a bizarre direction: not only does Israel’s history in particular come to an end, human history in general ends (CD III/2, 582).
Soulen makes the poignant criticism that models of Barth and Rahner (and any such model that downplays “historical particularity”) finds itself unable to speak a new word.
Summarizing the problem: the traditional model makes God’s identity as the God of Israel largely irrelevant. If Israel is just transient, why does God make a big deal of being the God of Israel?
Working Conclusions
1) “The God of the Hebrew Scriptures acted in Jesus for all the world” (178 n3).
2) Consider how the terms “Old Testament” and “New Testament” reinforce the standard narrative. The apostles used the term “Scriptures” for the Old Testament. We could probably say something like “apostolic witness” for the New. While Soulen doesn’t explicitly make this point, neither of these terms threaten issues about infallibility or authority.
3) Israel is the form of God’s intercourse with history. God’s “history with Israel and the nations is the permanent and enduring medium of God’s work as the consummator of human creation” (110).
4) Instead of an “economy of redemption” where everything is subsumed under “getting saved,” Soulen posits an ‘economy of blessing,’ where Israel will bring shalom to the nations (however we want to frame that around Christ’s mediatorial work). This blessing is anchored in Yahweh’s gifts to Israel of People, Torah, and Land.
5) God’s historical fidelity to Israel is the narrow gate that opens to the New Creation (133).
Isaiah 19 posits an economy of blessing where the distinctions between Israel, Egypt, and Assyria are maintained, yet all experience Shalom.
Criticisms
While we acknowledge that the standard model has big flaws, Soulen needed an extensive analysis of Galatians 3. How do we tie in the blessing of the nations from Abraham to the promise of the Seed in Galatians 3? Further, he completely avoided Romans 11, which would have only strengthened his case. This is baffling. He should have spent more time on Romans 11 and less on Bonhoeffer.
Thesis: Christians cannot claim to worship the God of Israel by making God indifferent to Israel (Soulen 4). The question of supersessionism hinges on whether baptized Jews must negate their Jewish heritage in order to be Christians? The post-Constantinian church said yes. The book of Acts appeared to say no.
Israel and Election
Soulen makes the argument that corporate election is just as offensive as “individual election.” What sense does it make for a universal God to elect a minority people? This is the scandal of particularity. Soulen counters by noting that love can’t be merely abstract. A pure “agape” love abstracted from any particularity is meaningless.
This determines whether the church will seek an “abstracted” divinity behind God’s election of Israel. Soulen frames his discussion around what he calls a “canonical narrative,” an understanding of “the inner configurations” and “interrelationships” of the canon (14). All such construals, as in our example of supersessionism, contain their own promises and problems. They have their own “grammar.”
The standard model’s main problem is that it makes God’s dealings with Israel largely irrelevant for how God will deal with creation. Soulen’s main problem with the standard model is that it makes Israel obsolete (29). This involves hermeneutics as well: on the standard model, do you need the Hebrew scriptures to make decisive judgments on how God deals with creation? Take the four points of the standard model:
1) God creates
2) Adam and Eve fall
3) 1st Advent
4) 2nd Advent
All four of these propositions (or if they are stated in propositional format) are true. However, with the exceptions of Genesis 1-3, you can formulate this system without regard to the Hebrew Scriptures. We see this early on with Justin Martyr, who advocates what is sometimes called (fairly or unfairly) replacement theology (Dial. 11).
How biblical is Justin’s Logos-theology? Despite a surface-level similarity with John 1:1, it doesn’t have much biblical support. It is “the principle of divine revelation that sprung forth from the transcendent God” at the moment of creation (35). What it isn’t is the life-giving, creative Word of the Covenant God. To oversimplify, cosmic history replaces salvation history.
Irenaeus’s perspective, on the other hand, is a bit more ambiguous. He championed the unity between the Old Testament and the New, yet Israel still functions like a 5th wheel. Missing from Irenaeus’s account, however, is the center of the Hebrew scriptures: God’s covenant dealings with Israel (45).
Christian Divinity without Jewish Flesh: The Legacies of Kant and Schleiermacher
Schleiermacher saw only three true monotheisms. Of the two, Judaism and Christianity are the better ones. Since Judaism, though, is still committed to non-spiritual things like land and Torah, they can’t fully develop their “God-consciousness.” Judaism and its doctrine of election is too particular.
Schleiermacher’s project removes the inner connection between Judaism and Christianity and leaves only an external relation. If Jesus were truly Jewish, he could never bring about our universal God-consciousness (76).
Consummation at the End of Christendom
Barth and Rahner do well to expose the semignosticism within the classical model, yet they never fully escape gnosticism. Barth begins on a promising note as he replaces Schleiermacher’s “God-consciousness” with “creation and covenant.” Unfortunately, Barth never fully lets the covenant model rescue him.
God’s covenant actions, for Barth, “summon the human creature beyond the dynamism of its natural being” (Soulen 85). Covenant is the internal logic of creation.
Barth goes on to say that Israel’s election is the medium for God’s consummating work in the world. This is a vast improvement over Justin and Irenaeus. Because of God’s fidelity to Israel, we believe he will be faithful to us (89).
Unfortunately, what Barth gives with one hand he takes away with the other. His “Christomonism” swallows up his emphasis on God’s particularity with Israel. Christ isn’t just the center of Barth’s theology. It is the whole field. With the person of Jesus Christ, carnal Israel comes to an end. So far that’s standard covenant theology. Barth then takes it in a bizarre direction: not only does Israel’s history in particular come to an end, human history in general ends (CD III/2, 582).
Soulen makes the poignant criticism that models of Barth and Rahner (and any such model that downplays “historical particularity”) finds itself unable to speak a new word.
Summarizing the problem: the traditional model makes God’s identity as the God of Israel largely irrelevant. If Israel is just transient, why does God make a big deal of being the God of Israel?
Working Conclusions
1) “The God of the Hebrew Scriptures acted in Jesus for all the world” (178 n3).
2) Consider how the terms “Old Testament” and “New Testament” reinforce the standard narrative. The apostles used the term “Scriptures” for the Old Testament. We could probably say something like “apostolic witness” for the New. While Soulen doesn’t explicitly make this point, neither of these terms threaten issues about infallibility or authority.
3) Israel is the form of God’s intercourse with history. God’s “history with Israel and the nations is the permanent and enduring medium of God’s work as the consummator of human creation” (110).
4) Instead of an “economy of redemption” where everything is subsumed under “getting saved,” Soulen posits an ‘economy of blessing,’ where Israel will bring shalom to the nations (however we want to frame that around Christ’s mediatorial work). This blessing is anchored in Yahweh’s gifts to Israel of People, Torah, and Land.
5) God’s historical fidelity to Israel is the narrow gate that opens to the New Creation (133).
Isaiah 19 posits an economy of blessing where the distinctions between Israel, Egypt, and Assyria are maintained, yet all experience Shalom.
Criticisms
While we acknowledge that the standard model has big flaws, Soulen needed an extensive analysis of Galatians 3. How do we tie in the blessing of the nations from Abraham to the promise of the Seed in Galatians 3? Further, he completely avoided Romans 11, which would have only strengthened his case. This is baffling. He should have spent more time on Romans 11 and less on Bonhoeffer.
July 8, 2023
It's a dense read, but man, do I wish more pastors and theologians would engage this material. It is a refreshing counterpoint to the various forms of supercessionism that are taken as "gospel" in the church. Highliy recommend!
February 5, 2014
A ground-breaking book, reviewing the fractious relationship between the christian church and the jewish people, and how on the basis of mis-reading and mis-interpreting key scriptural concepts, christian thinkers adopted a replacement theology. In most Christian thinking and practice, the church replaced Israel. Called supersessionism, Soulen identifies 3 forms it took over the centuries: punitive, economic and structural. Punitive supersessionism: since the Jews rejected the Messiah, God has rejected them, and replaced them with the church... hard to see how anyone reading Romans 9 thru 11 could conclude this, but they did, even up into the reformation - Martin Luther was a virulent anti-semite. Economic suppersessionism: in the economies of God design, Israel served its purpose in the giving of Messiah, and now their special role in His plans were over. Structural supersessionism: overlooks God's role and character as revealed in the OT except as they point forward to Messiah: a structural reading therefore of scripture which jumps from creation and fall in Genesis to the gospels, with nothing of consequence in between.
All forms share in sidelining the jewish people. The logical consequence of these forms of supersessionism resulted in a cauterized gospel cleansed of any jewishness, a view of the jewish people as despised and rejected, and an gentile Jesus, culminating in the holocaust.
It is only since the post-war that a major reassessment has begun to re-evaluate the early church within its proper 1st century context and abandon even latent traces of supersessionist thinking.
Unfortunately supersessionist thinking is still deeply engrained.
All forms share in sidelining the jewish people. The logical consequence of these forms of supersessionism resulted in a cauterized gospel cleansed of any jewishness, a view of the jewish people as despised and rejected, and an gentile Jesus, culminating in the holocaust.
It is only since the post-war that a major reassessment has begun to re-evaluate the early church within its proper 1st century context and abandon even latent traces of supersessionist thinking.
Unfortunately supersessionist thinking is still deeply engrained.
August 4, 2011
Reviewing my notes from this book ... this is the best one I've read on the subject of replacement theology. Thus I am revising my review. He has great insight on all the issues surrounding chosen-ness of Israel, identity as Gentiles, God's plan for mutual blessing between the two and the redemption of both through Israel's covenantal history, and the historical origins of replacement theology. The author captures the macro-level doctrinal view of Christendom as compared to an Israel-centered view. While the writing style is academic, it is still readable. He communicates well the Biblical expectations - not only that believing Jews and Gentiles should get along - but that that God's purpose for redemption is through the covenantal history of Israel. Thus without a distinction between Jews and Gentiles today, we lose the understanding and thus practical plan of His redemptive future purposes. I would have given it five stars, but in his conclusion he inserts a random comment that seemed to somehow de-emphasize evangelistic efforts toward Jews.
April 10, 2024
This is an eye-opening critique of Christian "supersessionism" and replacement theology that should give the Christian reader pause. Where historic Christianity seems to focus solely on redemption, Soulen makes the case that the real biblical narrative is a combination of consummation and redemption, with consummation at the forefront. His argument is sound and sobering. My only hesitation at giving this book a 5-star review is that his writing is dense and, in some cases, repetitive. But if you can push through it, the content is important and transformative for the way Christians need to reassess their view of Scripture and history.
April 14, 2012
Lots of big words and fancy concepts in this one, but all that means is that it will probably require some focused and close reading. It's an awesome book otherwise.
I read this book mostly because Soulen is one of my professors and my thesis advisor. But having read it, I'm extremely thankful that I did. I hadn't really given much thought to supersessionism or how we Christians should understand our relationship with the Jewish people, now and historically, and the Old Testament. I had always just thought that of course the God of the New Testament is the same as in the Old, but I hadn't thought about what that means. Like most Christians who might read this book, I think, I had unknowingly fallen into a supersessionist theology, the result of which is unfortunately devastating to how we relate to God, whether we want to admit it or not.
Soulen provides an excellent analysis of the history of Christian thought regarding the God of Israel and how we have gone wrong. He then very carefully provides a way to move forward with a more accurate understanding of our relationship with the Jewish people and the Old Testament that helps make sense of God and our own traditions.
I read this book mostly because Soulen is one of my professors and my thesis advisor. But having read it, I'm extremely thankful that I did. I hadn't really given much thought to supersessionism or how we Christians should understand our relationship with the Jewish people, now and historically, and the Old Testament. I had always just thought that of course the God of the New Testament is the same as in the Old, but I hadn't thought about what that means. Like most Christians who might read this book, I think, I had unknowingly fallen into a supersessionist theology, the result of which is unfortunately devastating to how we relate to God, whether we want to admit it or not.
Soulen provides an excellent analysis of the history of Christian thought regarding the God of Israel and how we have gone wrong. He then very carefully provides a way to move forward with a more accurate understanding of our relationship with the Jewish people and the Old Testament that helps make sense of God and our own traditions.
March 28, 2014
If you don't know what "Replacement Theology" (Supercessionism) is, you do not have the necessary foundation to claim a valid Christian faith. As R. Kendall Soulen points out, it is the "flaw in the heart of the crystal" of standard orthodox Christian faith (which came much later than the original modes of spiritual ideas promoted by Jesus and others of the same era). I am continually amazed by seminary trained pastors who have never dealt with or studied RT. How can the blind lead the blind?
March 28, 2016
I found this thought provoking romp through the vagaries of centuries of engagement between Judaism and Christianity enjoyable. The fact that I interacted with a theologically inclined group of lawyers during the undertaking no doubt added to the hilarity.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews