Soulen, R. Kendall. The God of Israel and Christian Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996.
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?
Constructing a New Model (Or Finding an Older One)
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.
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.