Winter 1984-1985 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources For Ministry

VOL. 4, NO.
4 WINTER 1984
A Scholarly Journal for Reflection on Ministry
QUARTERLY REVIEW
FOCUS O N JEWISH-CHRISTIAN RELATIONS

A. Roy Eckardt, Consulting Editor
The Relationship of Judaism and Christianity

Irving Greenberg
Jews and Christians

John T. Pawlikowski
Post-Holocaust New Testament Scholarship

Clark M. Williamson
The Jewish " N o " to Jesus and the Christian

" Y e s " to Jews
J. (Coos) Schoneveld
Heschel's Significance for Jewish-Christian

Eva Fleischner
Homiletical Resources from the Hebrew Bible for Lent

Michael Chernick
QUARTERLY REVIEW
A Scholarly Journal for Reflection on Ministry
A publication of The United Methodist Publishing House

Robert K. Feaster, President and Publisher
and the United Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry
F. Thomas Trotter, General Secretary
Editorial Director, Ronald P. Patterson

Editor, Charles E. Cole
Editorial Board
F. Thomas Trotter, Chair Lloyd R. Bailey
Fred B. Craddock Duke Divinity School
Candler School of Theology Cornish Rogers
Keith R. Crim School of Theology at Claremont
Westminster Press Roy I. Sano
Brita Gill Bishop, Denver Area,
Moderator, Northern California United Methodist Church
Conference, United Church of Christ John L. Topolewski
Leander Keck Christ United Methodist Church
Yale Divinity School Mountaintop, Pennsylvania
Quarterly Review (ISSN 0270-9287) provides continuing education resources for

professional ministers in The United Methodist Church and other churches. A scholarly
journal for reflection on ministry, Quarterly Review seeks to encourage discussion and
debate on matters critical to the practice of ministry.
Falling within the purview of the journal are articles and reviews on biblical, theological,
ethical, and ecclesiastical questions; homiletics, pastoral counseling, church education,
sacred music, worship, evangelism, mission, and church management; ecumenical issues;
cultural and social issues where their salience to the practice of ministry can be
demonstrated; and the general ministry of Christians, as part of the church's understanding
of its nature and mission.
Articles for consideration are welcome from lay and professional ministers, United
Methodists, and others, and should be mailed to the Editor, Quarterly Review, Box 871,
Nashville, Tennessee 37202. Manuscripts should be in English and typed double-spaced,
and the original and two duplicates should be submitted. No sermons, poems, or devotional
material are accepted. Queries are welcome. A style sheet is available on request. Payment is
by fee, depending on edited length.
Quarterly Review is published four times a year, in March, June, September, and
December, by the United Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry and The
United Methodist Publishing House. Editorial Offices are at 100119th Avenue, South, Box
871, Nashville, TN 37202. Circulation and business offices are at 201 Eighth Avenue South,
Box 801, Nashville, TN 37202. Second-class postage paid at Nashville, Tennessee. Quarterly
Review is available at a basic subscription price of $15 for one year, $26 for two years, and $33
for three years. Subscriptions may be obtained by sending a money order or check to the
Business Manager, Quarterly Review, Box 801, Nashville, TN 37202.
Postmaster: Address changes should be sent to The United Methodist Publishing House,
Box 801, Nashville, T N 37202.
Subscribers wishing to notify publisher of their change of address should write to the
Business Manager, Quarterly Review, Box 801, Nashville, T N 37202.
An index is printed in the winter issue of each year (number 5 for 1981 only; number 4
thereafter).
Quarterly Review: A Scholarly Journal for Reflection on Ministry
Winter, 1984
Copyright 1984 by The United Methodist Publishing House
and the United Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry
VOL. 4, NO. 4 WINTER 1984
QUARTERLY REVIEW
CONTENTS
Focus on Jewish-Christian Relations
A. Roy Eckardt, consulting editor
Editorial: W h e n a n E d i t o r N e e d s a n E d i t o r 3
T h e R e l a t i o n s h i p of J u d a i s m a n d Christianity; T o w a r d a N e w
Organic Model
Irving Greenberg 4
Jews and Christians: T h e C o n t e m p o r a r y Dialogue

John T. Pawlikowski 23
The N e w Testament Reconsidered: Recent Post-Holocaust Scholarship

Clark M. Williamson 37
T h e J e w i s h " N o " to J e s u s a n d the C h r i s t i a n " Y e s " to J e w s

/. (Coos) Schotteveld 52
H e s c h e l ' s Significance for J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n Relations

Eva Fleischner 64
H o m i l e t i c a l R e s o u r c e s from the H e b r e w Bible for L e n t

Michael Chemick 82
I n d e x to V o l u m e F o u r 103
EDITORIAL
W h e n an Editor Needs an Editor
W h e n you look for a consulting editor, you normally seek an expert

in the field. W e had n o trouble identifying such an authoritative figure
w h e n we decided to publish an issue with a focus o n Jewish-Christian
relations. A. Roy Eckardt has published an enormous number of
books, articles, and reviews on this theme over a period of several
decades, and we were fortunate that h e agreed to serve as our
consulting editor for this winter. Roy recently retired from the
Department of Religion Studies at Lehigh University, but he
continues to research and write. A m o n g his m a n y works are Elder and
Younger Brothers: The Encounter of Jews and Christians (Schocken, 1973),
Your People, My People: The Meeting of Jews and Christians (Quadrangle/
N e w York Times, 1974), and as co-author with his wife, Alice,
Encounter with Israel: A Challenge to Conscience (Association Press/Fol-
lett, 1970) and Long Night's Journey into Day: Life and Faith after the
Holocaust (Wayne State, 1982). O f course Roy has done more than
write and teach, and his participation in seminars, symposia, and
various interfaith discussions on this continent and abroad would
take another page or two to describe.
For those w h o would like to continue to reflect on Jewish-Christian
studies after reading parts of this issue of QR, an excellent resource is
an annotated bibliography Roy prepared for the Journal of the American
Academy of Religion in March, 1981, " R e c e n t Literature on Christian-
Jewish Relations."
As a consulting editor, Roy has helped us locate writers w h o are
knowledgeable and can write perceptively on sensitive and critical
issues. He has offered his own criticisms and suggestions on the
manuscripts and has used a variety of creative devices to see that
writers produced w h e n they were supposed to and in the way we
asked them to. W e h o p e readers will appreciate the " u n s e e n h a n d "
b e h i n d this special edition, and if they do they should direct their
gratitude to R o y , w h o s e counsel and work w e greatly admire.
3
THE RELATIONSHIP OF
JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY:
TOWARD A NEW ORGANIC MODEL
IRVING GREENBERG
" T h i s paper is an attempt to ask Jew9 and J e w i s h thinkers

to focus not only on Christian failure and the Christian
tradition o f teaching o f contempt . . . [but] whether it is
p o s s i b l e for J u d a i s m to have a more affirmative model of
Christianity/'
This paper does not focus o n the Holocaust but in part it is a

response to the Holocaust. In the light of the Holocaust, the
willingness to confront, to criticize, and to correct is the ultimate test
of the validity and the vitality of faith. O n e might say that that religion
which is most able to correct itself is the one that will prove itself to b e
most true. T h o s e w h o claim they have the whole truth and nothing
but the truth and there is nothing to correct thereby prove h o w false
and h o w ineffective their religious viewpoint is. T h e most powerful
proof of the vitality and the ongoing relevance of Christianity is the
work of people like Alice and Roy Eckardt w h o s e fundamental
critique of Christianity is surely o n e of the most sustained and
devastating moral analyses in its history. But their work, and that of
others like t h e m (Paul van Buren, Rosemary Ruether, Eva Fleischner)
is both healing and affirming of Christianity.
In that spirit, this paper is an attempt to ask J e w s and Jewish
thinkers to focus not only on Christian failure and the Christian
tradition of teaching of contempt. " T h e Holocaust cannot be used for
triumphalism. Its moral challenge must also b e applied to J e w s . " (See
my "Cloud of S m o k e , Pillar of Fire: Judaism, Christianity, and
Modernity after the Holocaust," in Eva Fleischner, Auschwitz:
Beginning of a New Era? [New York: K T A V , 1977], pp. 20-22.) This
paper asks whether it is possible for Judaism to have a more
Irving Greenberg is an Orthodox rabbi and is president of the National Jewish Resource
Center, an organization devoted to leadership education, policy guidance, and
intra-Jewish, ecumenical spiritual renewal. Rabbi Greenberg has written extensively on
Judaism and Christianity after the Holocaust.
4
RELATIONSHIP O F JUDAISM A N D CHRISTIANITY
affirmative model of Christianity, o n e that appreciates Christian

spiritual life in all its manifest power. If for n o other reason, let this be
done because if w e take the other's spiritual life less seriously, we run
the great risk of taking the biological life less seriously, too. It was the
Christian theological negativism and stereotyping of Judaism that
created that moral trap into which all too m a n y Christians fell during
the Holocaust. At the least, it encouraged relative indifference to the
fate of the other. In the light of the Holocaust, J e w s have to ask
themselves: Is there anything in Jewish tradition or the Jewish model
of other religions like Christianity that could lead to some indifference
to the fate of others?
After the Holocaust, a model of the relationship of Judaism and
Christianity ideally should enable one to affirm the fullness of the
faith-claims of the other, not just offer tolerance. It is important to
avoid a kind of affirmation of the other that is patronizing. Take
Martin Buber, our master and teacher. In Buber's book Two Types of
Faith, and other writings on Christianity, one is fascinated b y the
incredible openness (which profoundly affected m e ) . Martin Buber
speaks of " m y brother J e s u s . " (The daring and the power of that
statement! I could never use that term.) Yet in Buber's approach,
Jesus' true religion is the subterranean religion which runs through
Judaism also. T h e Christianity that Buber loves turns out to be
suspiciously like the Judaism that Buber loves. That religion,
theologically misled b y Paul, turns into the Christianity w e all know.
N o w Buber in his o w n way was a remarkable pioneerbut is that
ultimately the message?that Christianity is a wonderful religion
w h e n it fits (our) Jewish ideas? Should not Jewish theology seek to be
open to Christian self-understanding, including the remarkable,
unbelievable claim of Resurrection, Incarnation, etc.? Can o n e , as a
J e w , take these claims seriously without giving u p one's Jewishness?
U p to now, the agreed response is that if you take such claims
seriously, there is nothing further to be as a J e w . This is w h y J e w s who
are serious J e w s have rejected these claims in the past.
This paper seeks to articulate a model that would allow for the
Christian possibility without yielding the firm conviction that Judaism
is a covenant faith, true and valid in history. I believe that Judaism has
never been superseded, and that its work is yet unfinished. W e need a
model that would allow both sides to respect the full nature of the
other in all its faith-claims. ( O n e must recognize that there is a whole
Orange of Christian self-understanding and a whole range of Jewish
self-understanding, from the most secular to the most fundamental-
5
Q U A R T E R L Y REVIEW, W I N T E R 1984
ist. Ideally, a model should allow room for that range of model, and
still not exclude the fullness of the faith-claims of the other.) Last, but
not least, the model is willing to affirm the profound inner
relationship b e t w e e n the two, and to recognize and admit h o w much
closer they are to each other than either has b e e n able to say, without
denying the other. U p to n o w , the affirmation that the two religions
are profoundly close was made by Christians w h o claimed that
Christianity grows organically out of Judaism in the course of
superseding Judaism. T o the extent that there have been Christians
w h o have affirmed Judaism as valid, they have had (to a certain
extent) to overemphasize Jewish differentiation in order to make
space for Jewish existence. T o the extent that there were Jews willing
to see Christianity as a valid religion, they also tended to stress the
differences, in order to protect Judaism. This model will seek to
reduce the gaps without denying the authenticity of the other.
THE SCRIPTURAL MODEL
Judaism is a religion of redemption. T h e fundamental teaching of

Judaism is that because this world is rooted in an infinite source of life
and goodness, which w e call God, life within it is growing, increasing,
perfecting. Life is developing to b e c o m e more and more like God. T h e
ultimate achievement so far is the h u m a n being. T h e h u m a n being is
in the image of G o d , so m u c h like G o d that one can literally use the
imagery of a human-like G o d . In the case of the human, life is of
infinite value, equal and unique. Judaism claims that this process will
continue until life's fullest possibilities will be realized, until life finally
overcomes death.
If that is not incredible enough, Judaism makes a further claim. T h e
world that we live in, in the realm of the history of h u m a n s , is where
this perfection will c o m e . There is another realmrabbinic Judaism
affirms a world to c o m e . This perfection of life will be achieved in the
realm which the five senses can see and measure, in the realm of
history. Sickness will be overcome; poverty and oppression will be
overcome; death will be overcome. T h e political, economic, and social
structures will be restructured, to support and nurture the perfection
of life.
Finally, Judaism said that if G o d is good and God is a source of
infinite life and infinite goodness, no one should have died in the first
place. To perfect the world, it would not be enough to overcome death
prospectively. Judaism goes on to say there will be resurrection. All
6
RELATIONSHIP OP JUDAISM A N D CHRISTIANITY
those w h o have died will come to life. T h e n all will k n o w that

everything about G o d is true. Faith is not a fairy tale. If all this does not
h a p p e n , then the whole Torah is an illusion, a fable. This affirmation
is part of the courage and daring of Judaism. It set the test of its truth
not in another world which cannot be measured, not in a world from
which there are n o travelers w h o have returned with firsthand
reports. Judaism insisted that redemption is going to h a p p e n in this
world, where you can see it, measure itand if it does not happen,
then the religion is revealed to be an illusion.
This vision of Judaism was set in motion by a great event in Jewish
historythe Exodus. Exodus points to a future goal in that it promises
that not only Jews will reach the Promised L a n d of freedom and
equality but all people will. B y its o w n definition, then, Judaism is a
religion that is o p e n to further events in history. O r to put it another
way, Judaism has built into its o w n self-understanding that it must
generate future messianic m o m e n t s . A n d the central revealed
metaphor that guides this process from the beginning is covenant.
T h e covenant is b e t w e e n G o d and Israel. G o d could do it alone. But
the achievement of total perfection of the world will take place as the
result of the efforts of both partners. Although the promised
perfection s e e m s b e y o n d h u m a n capacity, the two partners between
t h e m can achieve it. In theory, the divine respects h u m a n free will.
Therefore this final perfection cannot simply b e given b y God or
brought on by h u m a n effort.
T h e covenant makes possible the process of getting to the final
redemption. T h e covenant is Israel's c o m m i t m e n t not to stop short of
perfection. It is the pledge to testify, to teach the world, to witness to
other h u m a n beings. A n d the covenant also implies that w e can
answer the question: W h a t do I do n o w ? T h e answer is: step by step.
Use an army to reduce the possibility of war. If o n e has to fight, kill as
few people as possible. A commitment to achieve perfection step by
step m e a n s that the model of perfection itself unfolds in history.
T o summarize: Judaism is a religion of redemption and perfection,
rooted in history, operating through a covenant, illuminated by
history, open to further events of revelation which will clarify its
message, with an implied pedagogical model of the relationship of
G o d and h u m a n s in which God will help the h u m a n s unfold, but will
not force them to be free.
JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY
In light of all this, to be a faithful J e w is to look forward to further

events of revelation and redemption beyond the Exodusevents that
7
Q U A R T E R L Y REVIEW, WINTER 1984
will illuminate the covenantal way a n d guide it forward. W h e n should

one most look forward to those kinds of events? In time of great
despair a n d setbacks. That is the time to anticipate the messiah. T o
those committed to the triumph of life, goodness, and justice, the
m o m e n t of great injustice is the time to look forward even more to
messianic redemption. W h e n evil reigns supreme, the true balance
a n d direction of history has b e e n disturbed. T h e only event that can
correct such imbalance is a major redemptive move on the other side.
T h e logic of covenantal redemption explains w h y Judaism, in fact,
generated Christianity. O n e might argue that generating Christianity
is a necessary sign of Judaism's vitality. It is a sign that the dynamics of
the covenant are operating. If Judaism did not generate messianic
expectations, did not generate a messiah, it would be a sign that it was
dead. As long as J e w r y is generating messiahs, it is faithful to its o w n
As long as Jewry is generating messiahs, it is faithful to its

own calling.
calling. If Judaism does not generate messiahsat least until the final
messiah does c o m e and straighten out the whole worldthen there is
something wrong.
(In writing about the Holocaust, I once wrote that I was ashamed of
the fact that, in this generation, there was not at least a false messiah.
A false messiah would s h o w that the Jews were truly living up to their
vocation, which is to hope and expect the messiah, particularly in
such tragic times. If o n e h o p e s for the messiah and a false o n e shows
upwell, it is regrettable but at least o n e has tried. Not to generate
even a false messiah is a sign that people are complacent; they have
either lost h o p e or do not care.)
T h e later event which illuminates the earlier event and guides us to
its fulfillment is the messianic m o m e n t . This is w h y I believe the early
Christians were faithful Jews w h e n they recognized Jesus. Like good,
faithful J e w s , they were looking for the messiah, particularly in a
different century. Lo and behold! T h e y recognized his arrival. That is a
very faithful response of a Jewto recognize that the messiah has
arrived, and to respond.
T h e early Christians were equally faithful, a n d equally acting out of
loyalty to their Jewish understanding, w h e n they responded to a
8
further event, o n e they had not anticipated at all; namely, the

messiah's death.
Caution: W h e n e v e r o n e responds to a n e w event, believing this
event illuminates the original event, there is a risk. O n the o n e hand,
the response s h o w s faithfulness. O n the other hand, there are great
dangers. O n e risk is to give your trust and faith to a false messiahthe
n e w arrival may turn out not to be the true messiah. T h e r e is a further
riskthe n e w developments m a y lead to a transformation of the
original ideas. T h e n , out of trying to be faithful to the n e w experience,
o n e m a y find oneself in some way leaving behind or betraying the
original commitments. W h i c h then are true: the old ideas or the new
ones? O r both? T h e answer, of course, is that there is n o guarantee in
advance. Wait until it is all clarified and it will be too late. O n e must
respond right n o w . Faith response is a w a g e r of one's o w n life, out o f
faithfulness.
Consider the Jewish Sitz im Leben of those faithful Jewish Christians
responding to the messiah. Here w a s this m a n w h o m they
experienced as the messiah. He was shockingly killed. It was a
terrible, degrading death. Equally shocking was the belief the messiah
w a s supposed to bring the final perfection: peace, dignity, prosperity,
independence. Instead o f doing all this, this messiah died miserably,
according to some reports, even in despair and self-denial.
N o w , as faithful Jews (they still were not Christians) h o w ought
they to have responded to his death? Should they have said, " H e was
a false m e s s i a h " ? Should they have betrayed the original insight that
this person was the messiah? O r should they have thought, " M a y b e
this death is another event that illuminates the m e a n i n g of the
previous e v e n t " ? M a y b e the Crucifixion is not a refutation of Jesus'
being the messiah, but rather a clarification of the nature of
redemption. U p to n o w , they thought that the messiah would
straighten out the political and economic world, because that was the
mental image of what it meant to perfect the world. But if I as an early
Christian k n e w this was the messiah but h e did not bring worldly
liberation, I had an alternative to yielding faith. T h e alternative was to
say that the death is teaching a lesson. T h e lesson is that true
redemption is not in this world. T h e kingdom of G o d is within you.
Faith leads to a world of spiritual perfection: even though I a m a slave,
I a m free in Christ.
T h e Christians responded faithfully but later history suggests
t h e y m a d e a hermeneutical error. T o put it another way: In retrospect,
it was a mistake to say that the explanation of the Crucifixion is that
9
the redemption is b e y o n d history. That j u d g m e n t generated a

fundamental continuing problem of Christianity. In its faithfulness to
its vision of Christ comepitted against the shocking reality of a
world of suffering a n d evil and povertyChristianity is continually
tempted to answer: " T h i s vale of tears is not the real world. T h e world
of suffering a n d oppression does not matter. It is trivial or secondary.
T h e world that really counts is the spiritual world. That is where you
can b e born againand free right n o w . " But this finding betrays the
fundamental claim of Judaism that life itself and not only after life will
be perfected.
As they struggled with the m e a n i n g of their faithfulness to Jesus,
Christians went on to make a second error, w h e n the destruction of
the temple c a m e a generation later. But this second error was again
the outgrowth of a response of faith to a great historical eventan
other paradigmatic, authentic act of a religious J e w . In the light of the
destruction, Jewish and Gentile Christians concluded that they had
misunderstood. T h e y thought that Jesus was the fulfillment of the
Jewish promises within the bounds of Jewish life and hope going o n
as before. But if the J e w s do not accept Jesus, even after their temple is
destroyed, is this not a proof that G o d has in fact rejected them? A n d
using the s a m e hermeneutical model, would not Gentile Christians
conclude that the acceptance of Christianity in the world proves that
Jesus came not to continue the old and the original covenant, but
rather to bring a n e w covenant to humanity? A n d since the Jews failed
to understand, have they not forfeited the promise? In short, the
In short, the classic Christian interpretation that Chris

tianity has superseded Judaism is an understandable
hermeneutic, rooted in Jewish models of interpretation and
capable of being derived out of faithfulness to past Jewish
modes of thinking.
classic Christian interpretation that Christianity has superseded

Judaism is an understandable hermeneutic, rooted in Jewish models
of interpretation and capable of being derived out of faithfulness
to past J e w i s h m o d e s of thinking. T h e paradox is that although
Jewish thinking is involved in arriving at this conclusion, the
10
conclusion itself was devastating for future Jewish-Christian rela

tions. In effect, the response to the destruction created a model of
relationship in which the mere existence of the J e w s is a problem for
Christianity. T h e obvious temptationcontinually given in towas
to solve the problem by getting rid of the Jews.
There were and are three classic Christian ways of removing the
Jewish problem. O n e was to insist that the J e w s were not really alive:
Judaism was a fossilized religion; J e w s are children of the devil; they
are dead, but the devil is pumping them u p , etc. This is the way o f
caricature and dismissal; of stereotypes of legalism and sp&t Judentum.
In taking this tack, Christians did not deal with the possibility that
God was keeping the J e w s alive because G o d wanted their testimony
to go on until the world itself was redeemed. T h e second way was to
convert J e w s to b e c o m e Christians so there would be no problem.
However, by and large, the J e w s declined to yield their witness.
T h e third way, if the other two did not work, was to kill the
Jewsthen there was no contradiction between Jewish existence and
Christianity anymore.
T h e supersessionist interpretation continually tempted Christianity
into being neither the gospel of love it wanted to b e , nor the
outgrowth of Judaism seeking to reach out and realize Israel's
messianic dream that it could have been. Christianity was continually
led to b e c o m e an otherworldly, triumphalist religion that put its own
mother down; it spit into the well from which it drank.
T h e rabbis and the J e w s had a similar problem from the other side.
After all, they sensed the profound continuity from Judaism into
Christianity. T h e hermeneutical language of H e b r e w Scriptures
makes many of the same claims. W h a t m a d e it worse, or more
difficult, was that Christianity triumphed. Christianity became a
world religion, far greater in its numbers than Judaism. H o w can one
account for that, if o n e believes that Judaism is true and the messiah
has not come yet? In Jewish terms, could there be more clear proof of
Christian claims than the fact that it triumphed in history?
The Jews, too, handled the problem b y a series of responses. First,
the Christian victory was not really a victory: " L o o k h o w evil the
world is even after Jesus' career." This is the bedrock of Jewish
response to Christianity but it did not deal with the possibility that the
nature of redemption was being redefinedor widenedor partially
realized.
S e c o n d , Christianity is neither a gospel of love nor G o d ' s message,
because look h o w cruel Christians are to J e w s . Far from bringing
11
redemption, Christianity has brought a whole n e w s u m of evil a n d

cruelty into the world. That is the best proof Christianity is not a true
religion.
Third, Christians claim to supersede Jewry. Christians themselves
say that if Christianity is true faith, then Judaism d o e s not exist or has
no right to exist. But Jewry k n o w s that it is alive and vital. Obviously,
Christianity must b e false. If your truth m e a n s that I a m not valid, but
I k n o w m y o w n validity, then y o u must b e false.
T h e fourth Jewish response was that Christianity triumphed a m o n g
the Gentiles. N o J e w would fall for that fairy tale of a virgin mother. If
you were pregnant from s o m e o n e else, what would y o u tell your
husband? This is fundamentally h o w medieval J e w s handled
Christianity. J o s e p h was a fool e n o u g h to believe. With o n e J e w , you
never can tell. But the J e w s as a w h o l e would not b u y it. That a whole
world would buy it proves that Gentile heads can be filled with
anything. This understanding bred contempt for Gentiles rather than
appreciation for their joining in the work of achieving total
redemption, i.e., both worldly and spiritual. O f course, the contempt
was earned and reinforced by Christian mistreatment of Jews.
Just as Christians were tempted to step out of history because the
messiah h a d c o m e already and the ongoing suffering was a problem,
so the answer was that history did not matter. J e w s were also tempted
to step out of history because in that arena, Christianity h a d won. T o
which the Jewish a n s w e r w a s that what h a p p e n e d in history was n o w
unimportant. Christianity had triumphedtemporarily. W h e n the
final redemption c o m e s , all these h u g e statues a n d towers will c o m e
crashing d o w n , a n d humanity will k n o w the truth. Jewry, this small,
pitiful people which h a d n o political clout h a s really been the heart o f
the world. All the rest has b e e n just a big, flashy show, u p
fronttemporarily. Therefore, Judaism also stepped out of history to
wait for its final redemption.
T h e o n e thing the rabbis would give Christianity, then, is that Jesus
was a messiaha false messiah. This negative view conceded very
little. Jesus was not the only false messiah in Jewish history; he w a s
neither the first n o r the last. In the seventeenth century, Shabbetai
Tsvi, one of the great false messiahs of Jewish history, swept the
J e w i s h world. T h e J e w s are still looking for a messiah. S o , if a few J e w s
followed Jesus, it proved nothing. T h e rabbis concluded that
Christianity was an alien growth, developed b y those w h o followed a
false messiah.
T h e rabbis perhaps erred here. Understandably, they did not do
12
greater justice to Jesus b e c a u s e they were surrounded b y an enemy

(i.e., Christians) one h u n d r e d times larger than Jewry, aggressively
proselytizing and persecuting the J e w s in the n a m e of J e s u s ' claims.
Out of defensiveness, the rabbis confused a "failed"

messiah (which is what Jesus was) and a false messiah.
Out of defensiveness, the rabbis confused a "failed" messiah (which

is w h a t Jesus was) a n d a false messiah. A false messiah is o n e w h o has
the w r o n g values: o n e w h o would teach that death will triumph, that
people should oppress each other, that G o d hates us, or that sin and
crime is the proper way. In the eighteenth century, a putative Jewish
messiah n a m e d Jacob Frank e n d e d u p teaching his people that out of
sin comes redemption; therefore, one must sin. Such is a false
messiah.
A failed messiah is o n e w h o has the right values, upholds the
covenant, but w h o did not attain the final goal. In the first century,
1 3 0 - 1 3 5 , Bar K o c h b a , the great Jewish freedom fighter w h o led a
revolt against R o m e that temporarily drove R o m e out of Jerusalem,
sought to free the land. H e was hailed by Rabbi Akiva and m a n y great
rabbis as the messiah. His rebellion was crushed; it did not bring that
final step of redemption. It turned out that h e was a failed messiah.
But Akiva did not repudiate him. Since w h e n is worldly success a
criterion of ultimate validity in Judaism?
Calling J e s u s a failed messiah is in itself a term of irony. In the
Jewish tradition, failure is a most ambiguous term. Abraham was a
"failure." He dreamt of converting the whole world to Judaism. He
e n d e d up barely having one child carrying o n the tradition. Even that
child he almost lost.
M o s e s was a "failure." He dreamt of taking the slaves, making
t h e m into a free people and bringing t h e m to the Promised Land.
T h e y were hopeless slaves; they died slaves in the desert; neither they
nor M o s e s ever reached the Promised L a n d .
Jeremiah was a "failure." He tried to convince the Jewish people
that the temple would be destroyed unless they stopped their morally
and politically w r o n g policies; h e tried to convince them to b e ethically
responsible, to free their slaves, not to fight Babylonia. N o one
listened.
All these "failures" are at the heart of divine and Jewish
13
QUARTERLY REVIEW, WINTER 1984
achievements. This concept of a "failed" but true messiah is found in a

rabbinic tradition of the Messiah b e n Joseph. T h e Messiah b e n David
(son of David) is the o n e w h o brings the final restoration. In the
Messiah ben J o s e p h idea, you have a messiah w h o c o m e s and fails,
indeed is put to death, but this messiah paves the w a y for the final
redemption.
In fact, Christians also sensed that Jesus did not exhaust the
achievements of the final messiah. Despite Christian claims that Jesus
was a total success (the proof being that redemption has b e e n
achieved; it is of the otherworldly kind) even Christians spoke of a
S e c o n d Coming. T h e concept of S e c o n d Coming, in a way, is a tacit
admission that if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
O n e might argue then that both sides claimedand deniedmore
than was necessary in order to protect their o w n truth against the
counterclaims of the other. Both sides were too close to recognize each
other, and too close and too conflicted to c o m e to grips with each
other's existence as valid in its o w n right. Both faiths stepped out of
history to protect their o w n positionChristians denying anything
revelatory further can h a p p e n in history because Christ is the final
revelation; J e w s denying any further revelation in history because
Judaism is a covenant that cannot b e revoked.
There was even more theological fallout to these moves. Religion
tended to abandon the world to Caesar or to m a m m o n . Religion all too
often ended u p as an opiate of the m a s s e s , i.e., promising people
fulfillment in the great by-and-by if they accept suffering and the
world as it is. In a way, each group was defining the sacred out of
history into another realm.
Placing the sacred b e y o n d history protected faith from refutation
and disappointment but the cost was high. It is not surprising then
that each faith tended to generate m o v e m e n t s from time to time that
sought to redress the balance or that sought to bring the "missing"
part of redemption into being. W h a t was defined as " m i s s i n g " grew
out of the interaction of tradition, local culture, and the historical
condition of the group. Since the concept o f redemption can be
p u s h e d toward a spiritual realization or a worldly o n e , both religions
developed parallel responses along a spectrum of positions within
each faith. T h e s e developments further complicated the relations
b e t w e e n the two faiths even as they ensured even greater overlap and
parallelism b e t w e e n them.
In retrospect, a key m o m e n t of division c a m e in the differential
response of the two groups to the destruction of the S e c o n d Temple.
14
T h e Christians reacted to the destruction as the best proof that the

Jews had forfeited their covenant. If the main vehicle and channel of
Jewish relationship to God has been cut off a n d destroyed, is this not
decisive proof that G o d has rejected Jews? In fact, the Jewish
Christians left Jerusalem before the final destruction, thus, as the J e w s
saw it, abandoning the Jewish people. Christians assumed that Jewry
had n o future and went off to make their o w n religion, their o w n faith,
their o w n h o m e , their o w n future.
T h e Christians were wrong. Judaism did not disappear, the Jews did
not disintegrate. The rabbis encountered a crisis equal to the early
Christians' experience of the Crucifixion, i.e., being cut off from the
channel of revelation and connection to God, with the question
gnawing at their faith: W h y did evil triumph in this world? T h e same
questions that Christians raised, Jews understood, too. Does the
destruction mean that the Jews are finished? Does it mean the covenant
is finished? The rabbis responded with faith in the covenant and trust in
God and the goal. T h e rabbis answered, as the prophets before them,
that the destruction was punishment for sins, and therefore a mark of
divine concernnot rejection. The most fundamental insight of the
rabbis was: W h y did God not vanquish the Romans, even as God had
destroyed the Egyptians? The rabbis concluded that G o d had "pulled
back"but not to abandon Jews and not to withdraw from this world
because of some weakening of concern. Instead of splitting the Red Sea
again, God was calling the people of Israel to participate more fully in
the covenant. Instead of winning the war for the Jews, God was
instructing the Jews to participate in redemption themselves. The Jews
failed to do so adequately. They engaged in civil war and fought each
other instead of the Romans. Since they had timed and conducted their
rebellion wrongly, the Jewish failure was the Jewish failure, not God's
rejection. The lesson of the destruction was not that God had
abandoned Israel, but that God was deliberately hiding in order to
evoke a greater response, a greater participation in the covenantal way.
This " h i d i n g " can be seen as a kind of "secularization" process. In
the temple, the manifest G o d s h o w e d overwhelming power. In the
old temple, G o d was so manifest that holiness was especially
" c o n c e n t r a t e d " in Jerusalem. If one w e n t into the temple without the
proper purification ritual, it was like walking into a nuclear reactor
without shielding: one would inescapably die. T h e synagogue is a
place one can enter with milder preparation and far less risk. T h e
divine is present but its power is " s h i e l d e d . "
15
In " h i d i n g , " divine was calling on Israel to discern the divine,

which was hidden but present everywhere. T h e manifest G o d is visible
in Jerusalem. T h e hidden G o d can b e found everywhere. O n e need
not literally go to Jerusalem to pray. O n e can pray anywhere in the
world. T h e synagogue, w h i c h was a secondary institution before the
destruction, b e c a m e a central institution afterward. In the temple,
G o d spoke, either directly, or through the breastplate, or through the
prophet. T h e synagogue is the place you go to w h e n G o d n o longer
speaks to you.
T h e deepest paradox of the rabbis' teaching was that the more G o d
is hidden, the more G o d is present. T h e difference is that in the good
old days o n e did not have to lookthe divine illumination lit up the
world. N o w , one must look. If o n e looks more deeply, o n e will see
G o d everywhere. But to see G o d everywhere, o n e must understand.
T h e key to religious understanding is learning. T h e Jewish people, in
biblical times an ignorant peasantry, awed by sacramental, revelatory
experiences in the temple, were trained b y the rabbis to learn and
study. N o w that G o d n o longer speaks directly, h o w would o n e know
what God wants? T h e a n s w e r is to go to the synagogue; there o n e
does not s e e G o d visibly, but one prays and asks G o d for guidance. G o
ask a rabbi: " W h a t does G o d want from m e ? " and the rabbi answers,
" I do not have direct access. I will study the record of God's past
revelation. I will study the precedents for the situation and give you
m y best j u d g m e n t as to what G o d wants right n o w . " Note that the
h u m a n agent takes a m u c h more active part in discerning God's will
but the answer is m u c h less certain at the end of the process.
W h e n e v e r o n e asks a question, rabbis disagree. W h e n there is h u m a n
participation, there is disagreement but both views are valid.
In the triumph o f the rabbis, there w a s an incredible transformation
of Judaism. T h e manifest, sacramental religion of the Bible was
succeeded by the internalized, participatory, more " l a i c " faith of the
rabbinic period. Indeed, the rabbis came to the conclusion that they
had lived through events comparable almost to a reacceptance of the
covenant. E v e n as Christians responded to their great religious
experiences by proclaiming its record to b e a N e w Covenant, Jews
responded to theirs by affirming a renewal of the covenant.
In short, to reverse a classic Christian explanation of the
relationship of Judaism and Christianity, I would argue that both
Judaism and Christianity are outgrowths of and continuous with the
biblical covenant; that indeed Christianity is closer to the biblical
world, but not in the triumphalist way that Christianity has always
16
claimed. Rather, Christianity is a commentary on the original Exodus,

in which the later eventthe Christ eventis a manifest, "biblically"
miraculous event. G o d b e c o m e s incarnate and self-validating through
miracles. Obviously, m a n y J e w s will argue that closing the biblically
portrayed gap between the h u m a n and the divine, between the real
and the ideal, b y Incarnation, is idolatrous or at least against the grain
of the biblical way. But even if Incarnation is contradictory to some
biblical principles, the model itself is operating out of classic biblical
modesthe need to achieve redemption, the desire to close the gap
b e t w e e n the h u m a n and divine which includes divine initiatives, etc.
T h u s one can argue that Incarnation is improbable and violative of
other given biblical principles or that it is unnecessary in light of the
continuing career of the Jewish people. But o n e can hardly rule out the
option totally, particularly if it was intended for Gentiles and not
intended for Jews. This approach grants Christianity legitimate roots
in the biblical, but also locks it into a biblical m o d e of theological
action.
By contrast, Judaism went into a second stage, continuous but
developed out of the biblical mode. In this stage, G o d is more hidden,
Judaism is more worldly. In this stage, the h u m a n matures and the
covenantal model leads to greater responsibility for h u m a n beings. I
personally consider the rabbinic to be a more mature m o d e of religion.
However, I would also affirm that the sacramental mode (Christian
ity) is most appropriate for Gentiles. This is the first step of Gentile
covenantal relationship with G o d . J e w s were in the same mode in
their first stage, also. T h e choice of this mode bespeaks the divine
pedagogy of love which approaches people w h e r e they are and, only
after they have grown into the covenant, leads t h e m to n e w levels of
relationship. Nor does my analysis foreclose the possibility that
sacramental Christianity is in fact a higher form of biblical religion,
i.e., o n e in which G o d is even more manifest and present.
N . B . : T h e foregoing model of the relationship o f Judaism and
Christianity to each other and to biblical faith is offered with great
diffidence. T h e statement that Christianity is closer to the biblical
m o d e can be misused to reassert the old Christian claim that
Christianity is the true outgrowth of the biblical covenant and that
Judaism is cut off from its roots. Moreover, the model opens great
vistas of Christian legitimacy in Jewish eyes without any guarantee
that the ongoing Christian denial of Jewish validity will b e stopped.
M y affirmations, then, may feed Christian triumphalism and
supersessionism. I acknowledge the risk but I think it is worth risk to
17
overcome the dismissals and divisiveness which w e a k e n the role of

both religions. I turn to Christians in trust and love and depend on
them to prevent triumphalist abuses. Failure to prevent would only
prove that Christianity is not a valid hermeneutic on the biblical
covenant. It would suggest that the s u m of w o e brought into the
world by Christianity will go o n and on, undermining its claim to be a
legitimate major step forward on the road to redemption.
By the s a m e token, m a n y Christians will find the concept that G o d
called Jewry to a n e w level of relationship in the covenant a denial of
their o w n belief in Christ as the ultimate event. I do not underestimate
the challenge in giving up the m o n o p o l y claims or in recognizing
Judaism as a form of independently valid relationship to G o d . Yet,
this model offers the affirmation of the fullest possibilities of Christ:
from G o d Incarnate to prophet or messiah or teacherfreed at least of
the incubus of hatred and monopolistic claims of owning G o d . For this
model to work, J e w s as well as Christians will have to have faith in the
sufficiency of G o d ' s capacity to offer love enough for everyone and
that the Lord w h o is the Makom/Place, w h o is "the ground of all
existence" has m a n y messengers.
IN A N E W E R A : A F T E R M O D E R N I T Y A N D
AFTER HOLOCAUST AND REBIRTH OF ISRAEL
T h e history which both religions denied in order to claim their own

absolute validity c a m e b a c k to h a u n t t h e m . In the modern period, the
revolt of h u m a n s against oppression, suffering, and inequality led to
an e n o r m o u s growth of secularism a n d rejection of religion. Both
Christianity and Judaism lost serious ground to revolt in the name of
the very goal they were pledged to achieve in the first place. A n d both
faiths were forced back into history b y the overwhelming weight of
m o d e r n culture a n d scholarship which continually dug at their
claimed foundations, i.e., transcendent extrahistorical truth. Modern
scholarship insisted that the denial of history is false. Revelation is in
history. T o deny that, o n e must ignore or contradict archeology,
anthropology, sociology, philosophy, history, which is to say, to b e
j u d g e d to be false, nonfactual, by the standards of modern culture.
Reluctantly but inexorably, both religions have b e e n forced to
confront their o w n historicity.
A n event of great historical magnitude has n o w gone beyond
modernity in pushing faith back into the maelstrom of history. In the
Holocaust, J e w s discovered they h a d n o choice but to go back into
18
history. If they did not have power, they would be dead. T h e only
way to prevent a recurrence was for Jews to go to their land, establish
a state and protect themselves, to take responsibility so that the
covenant people could be kept alive. In this generation, the Jewish
peoplesecular as well as religioustook responsibility for its fate,
and for the fate of the divine covenant with Jewry. This is the
meaning, not always recognized, of the re-establishment of the state
of Israel.
Christians also have b e e n forced back into history b y the impact of
this event. T h o s e faithful Christians realized that the evil portrait of
Judaism, the w h o l e attempt to assure Christian triumphalism, had
b e c o m e a source of the teaching of contempt and had convicted
Christianity or implicated it in a genocide to which it was indifferent
or silent. T h e Holocaust forced Jews and Christians to see that the
attempt to protect faith against history was an error and that both
religions can have n o credibility in a world in which evil can totally
triumph. I have argued elsewhere that the true lesson of the
Crucifixion h a d b e e n misunderstood b y Christians because of their
past triumphalism. In the light of the Holocaust, one would argue that
the true lesson of the Crucifixion is that if G o d in person came down
on earth in h u m a n flesh and was put o n the cross and crucified, then
G o d would be broken. G o d would be so exhausted b y the agony that
G o d would end up losing faith, and saying, " M y G o d , m y G o d , w h y
have you forsaken m e ? " If G o d could not survive the cross, then
surely no h u m a n can b e expected to. So the overwhelming call for
both religions is to stop the Crucifixion, not to glorify it. Just as Jews,
in response, took u p arms a n d took u p the power of the state, so
Christians are called simultaneously to purge themselves of the
hatred that made t h e m indifferent to others, and to take up the
responsibility of working in the world to bring perfection. This is the
c o m m o n challenge of b o t h faiths; they can ill afford to go o n focusing
on each other as the e n e m y .
There is another possible implication. Destruction of the temple
m e a n t that G o d was more hidden. Therefore, o n e had to look for G o d
in the more " s e c u l a r " area. Living after the Holocaust, the greatest
destruction of all time in Jewish history, o n e would have to say that
G o d is even more hidden. Therefore, the sacred is even more present
in every "secular" area. Building a better world, freeing the slaves,
curing sickness, responsibility for the kind o f economic perfection that
is n e e d e d to make this a world of true h u m a n dignity, all these
activities pose as secular. But in the profoundest sort of way these
19
activities are where G o d is most present. W h e n G o d is most hidden,

G o d is present everywhere. If w h e n G o d was hidden after the
destruction of the temple, one could find G o d in the synagogue, then
w h e n God is hidden after Auschwitz, o n e must find G o d in the street,
in the hospital, in the bar. A n d that responsibility o f holy secularity is
the responsibility of all h u m a n beings.
Similarly, apply the rabbis' analysis of w h y G o d did not stop the
R o m a n s to the question of w h y G o d did not stop the Holocaust.The
question is not: W h e r e was G o d during the Holocaust? G o d was where
G o d should have b e e n during the Holocaust. G o d was with God's
peoplesuffering, starving, being gassed a n d burnt alive. W h e r e else
would God b e , w h e n G o d ' s people are being treated that way?
The question is not: Where was God during the

Holocaust? . . . God was with God's peoplesuffering,
starving, being gassed and burnt alive.
T h e real question is: W h a t was G o d ' s message w h e n G o d did n o t .

stop the Holocaust? G o d is calling h u m a n s to take full responsibility
for the achievement of the covenant. It is their obligation to take arms
against evil a n d to stop it.
T h e implication of this model is that Judaism is entering a third
stage, or at least a n e w level of covenantal development. This is the
ultimate logic o f covenant: If G o d wants h u m a n s to grow to a final
perfection, then the ultimate logic of covenant is for h u m a n s to take
full responsibility. This does not m e a n the h u m a n arrogance that
dismisses G o d ; the h u m a n arrogance that says more h u m a n power is
automatically good. "Covenantal c o m m i t m e n t " implies the humility
of knowing that the h u m a n is not G o d . T h e h u m a n is like G o d but is
ultimately called b y G o d to be the partner. This implies the humility of
recognizing that o n e is a creature as well as a creator. Using this
covenantal understanding, o n e can perceive G o d as the Presence
everywheresuffering, sharing, participating, calling. But trust in
G o d or awareness of G o d is necessary but not sufficient for living out
faith. T h e awareness moderates the use of power; trust curbs power
ethically. B u t the theological c o n s e q u e n c e is that without taking
power, without getting involved in history, o n e is religiously
irresponsible. T o pray to G o d as a substitute for taking power is
blasphemous.
20
T h e n e w h u m a n responsibility level implies that the events of our

lifetime are revelatory. Therefore, o n e has to incorporate those events
into religion a n d into our understanding. If w e are to be true partners
with G o d , and if w e have full responsibility, then w e are morally
responsible for our o w n traditions. If there is anything in our o w n
traditions that d e m e a n s , or denies, or degrades somebody else, then
o n e cannot answer: it is the W o r d of G o d a n d so be it. O n e must
answer: it is m y responsibility. G o d has given m e a call to take
responsibility. Even if that m e a n s o n e must argue with God or
confront G o d , that also is responsibility. If, indeed, G o d said that only
a male can stand in for G o d , then s o m e o n e w h o is faithful to G o d
would have to argue with God: "It is not rightwoman is also your
creature, in your i m a g e . " If G o d declared the Jews blind and hateful,
to b e treated as pariahs, then o n e must confront G o d a n d call G o d
back to the universal love which G o d has revealed to humanity.
This is a time of major transformation in which the past experiences
o n the road to perfection are reinterpreted in light of the events of our
lifetime for b o t h religions. I believe w e are living in an age of the
J e w i s h re-acceptance of the covenant. T h e re-creation of Israel is the
classic covenantal symbol. If you want to k n o w if there is a G o d in the
world and is there still h o p e , if you want to k n o w w h e t h e r there is still
a promise of redemptionthe Bible says o n e goes back to Israel and
m a k e s the streets of Jerusalem resound with the laughter o f children
a n d the sounds of bride and groom dancing. That is what is
happening in Jerusalem right n o w . This is true notwithstanding all
the political, economic, a n d moral flaws of the n e w earthly Jerusalem.
T h e flaws, the tragic conflicts with Arabs, the difficulties, all these are
part of the fundamental proof that here w e have the hidden Presence.
This m o m e n t of revelation is fully human; this m o m e n t of redemption
is h u m a n l y fully responsible in the presence of G o d .
O n e might suggest that the Holocaust has its primary impact o n
Judaism. Nevertheless, as a Jewish theologian, I suggest that
Christianity also cannot be u n t o u c h e d b y the event. At the least, I
believe that Christianity will have to enter its second stage. If w e
follow the rabbis' model, this stage will be marked b y greater
"worldliness" in holiness. T h e role of the laity would shift from being
relatively passive observers in a sacramental religion to full (or fuller)
participation. In this stage, Christianity would make the m o v e from
being out of history to taking power, i.e., taking part in the struggle to
exercise power to advance redemption. T h e religious message would
be not accepting inequality but demanding its correction. T h e
21
m o v e m e n t is toward learning and understanding as against hierarchy

and mystery. Christiansas Jewswill recover the true role of
Israel/Jacob w h o struggles with G o d a n d with people, for the sake of
G o d and of humanity.
Unless this shift takes place, those Christians w h o seek to correct
Christianity vis-^-vis Judaism will be blocked by the fact that within
the N e w T e s t a m e n t itself are hateful images of J e w s . Therefore,
h u m a n s must take full responsibilitynot out of arrogance, not out of
idolatry. It must be done without making G o d into the convenient o n e
w h o says w h a t o n e wants to hear. O u t of the fullest responsibility to
its covenant partner, Christianity can undergo the renewal which I
believe it must undertake.
T h e unfinished agenda of the Jewish-Christian dialogue is the
recognition o f the profound interrelationship b e t w e e n both. Each
faith c o m m u n i t y experiencing the love of G o d a n d the chosenness of
G o d was tempted into saying: I a m the only o n e chosen. T h e r e was a
h u m a n failure to see that there is e n o u g h love in G o d to choose again
and again a n d again. Both faiths in renewal m a y yet apply this insight
not just to each other but to religions not yet worked into this
dialogue. H u m a n s are called in this generation to renew the
covenanta renewal which will d e m a n d o p e n n e s s to each other,
learning from each other, and a respect for the distinctiveness of the
ongoing validity of each other. S u c h o p e n n e s s puts n o religious claim
b e y o n d possibility but places the completion of total redemption at
the center of the agenda.
Judaism as a religion of redemption believes that in ages of great
destruction, o n e must s u m m o n u p an even greater response of life
a n d of re-creation. Nothing less than a messianic m o m e n t could
possibly begin to correct the balance of the world after Auschwitz.
This is a generation called to an overwhelming renewal of life, a
renewal built o n such love a n d such p o w e r that it would truly restore
the image of G o d to every h u m a n being in the world.
22
JEWS AND CHRISTIANS:
THE CONTEMPORARY DIALOGUE
JOHN T. PAWLIKOWSKI
T h e age o f proselytizing is over; the age o f dialogue has

b e g u n b e t w e e n J e w s and Christians.
A Jewish leader in the contemporary interreligious dialogue, Rabbi
Henry Siegman of the American Jewish Congress, once termed the
church-synagogue relationship "asymmetrical." What he meant was
that Jews and Christians frequently come to mutual sharing today with
different goals and different histories. This needs to be understood by
both sides if the dialogue is to be meaningfully sustained.
J e w s , as a minority, more often than not look to the dialogue as a
way of ensuring the security of the people Israel throughout the
world. Eradication of the vestiges of classical anti-Semitism from
Christian education a n d liturgy naturally b e c o m e s a prime compo
n e n t of this goal. Generally speaking, spiritual and theological
enrichment has not b e e n very high on the Jewish agenda. Christians
on the other h a n d are usually led to the dialogue from a twofold
motivation. First, there is the genuine desire to overcome the brutal
legacy of Christian anti-Semitism which, while not the sole instigating
cause of Naziism, certainly was its indispensable seedbed. Allied to
this goal is the desire to improve concrete relations b e t w e e n church
a n d synagogue today, in part to forge coalitions on other joint social
objectives. But just as vital is the realization that a proper
understanding of Judaismbiblical, S e c o n d Temple, and postbibli-
calis absolutely crucial to the full articulation of the basic Christian
message.
John T. Pawlikowski, O.S.M., is professor of theology at the Catholic Theological Union in

Chicago. His books include The Challenge of the Holocaust for Christian Theology (1978) and
Christ in the Light of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue (1982). Hispanic readers will be interested in
his article on the Jewish roots of Christianity and their implication for dialogue, "Nuestras
Raices Judias," available from the author. Pawlikowski has conducted workshops in
business ethics for corporate officials, has been a consultant to the U.S. Catholic Conference
on energy questions, and has been involved in politics and ethical questions in Poland,
Northern Ireland, and South Africa.
23
A m o n g those Christians who have been touched by the dialogue

with Jews and the Jewish tradition there exists a growing conviction that
a subtle Marcionism still resides in the churches. This anti-Jewish
disease not only harms relations with Jews but blocks the church from
genuine engagement with the world. T h e latter point has been
emphasized, albeit indirectly, in the insistence of several prominent
liberation theologians that the liberating spirit of the Exodus covenantal
tradition must become central in present-day Christian faith expression.
Authentic renewal in the church is dependent on a recovery of the
Jewish context of its origins. Judaism stood at the heart of Jesus'
spirituality and that of the early church. Judaism was not merely
perceived as prelude, much less foil, as Christians have so often
maintained subsequently. S o even if the Jewish response to actual
dialogue might b e slow at times and places (at least partially
understandable given the history of Christian anti-Semitism) Christians
still have every reason to engage in a thorough study of the Jewish
tradition past and present for the sake of their o w n religious integrity.
In the following pages w e will explore the issues from the church's
side in the dialogue, both in terms of improved Christian-Jewish
relations a n d the e n h a n c e d understanding of Christianity itself
through a greater appreciation of its Jewish roots. T h e r e are, of course,
issues that the Jewish community must face for honest encounter with
Christians. But before Christians p u s h the Jewish community too
hard on s o m e o f these, w e need to c o m e to grips with the agenda o n
our side. W e must never forget that there has b e e n a tremendous
imbalance in our relationship over the centuries. T h o u g h this fact
should not prevent Christians from making justified critiques of
Jewish stances o n s o m e issues, our historical " o p p r e s s o r " status
relative to the Jewish people does place u p o n us the burden of starting
the reconciliation process as a demonstration of our sincerity a n d
conversion.
T h e first issue that deserves our attention is in fact one of the
oldestthe Crucifixion story. Throughout the centuries the accounts
of J e s u s ' death served as a source of deep conflict b e t w e e n the
communities. J e w s , a s s u m e d by Christians to b e responsible for J e s u s '
death, were frequently persecuted as "Christ-killers." Vatican II and
numerous Protestant denominations have laid to rest this historic
deicide charge against the Jews which m o d e r n biblical scholarship has
s h o w n to b e baseless. But this change at the official teaching level has
not e n d e d all the problems connected with the narration of Christ's
death. O n a popular level m a n y believing m e m b e r s of the church
24
JEWS A N D CHRISTIANS
remain profoundly tainted in their outlook on the Jewish people b y

this fable. Popular culture with its Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell
and with its myriad passion plays tends to reinforce the stereotype of
Jewish collective responsibility for J e s u s ' death that has been so
traditional in the churches.
O v e r and above removing the negative aspects of the classic
depiction of the Crucifixion story it is important for people in the
church to begin to recognize its potential for unifying J e w s and
Christians. T h e Lutheran ethicist Franklin S h e r m a n captured this
Many Christians still see Jesus as standing alone against the

authorities, but in actual fact many other Jews also opposed
the Romans and the oppressive priestly elite of the
Jerusalem Temple.
point well s o m e years ago w h e n he wrote, " T h e symbol of the

agonizing G o d is the Cross of Christ. It is tragic that this symbol
should have b e c o m e a symbol of division between J e w s and
Christians, for the reality to which it points is a Jewish reality as well,
the reality o f suffering and m a r t y r d o m " (Worldview, September, 1974,
p. 29).
Until this more positive side of the Crucifixion story relative to
Judaism begins to e m e r g e in Christian consciousness the anti-Semitic
interpretation long associated with it will not be finally excised from
the church.
In relating the story of J e s u s ' death the Christian churches need to
begin stressing that the religious ideals which Jesus preached, and
which he tried to implement in the social structures that were part of
his milieu, w e r e shared by the most creative and forward-looking
forces in the Judaism of the period. It was this preaching and action
that brought Jesus to Calvary. Most Christians still look u p o n Jesus as
standing alone in his challenge to the authorities, as in conflict with
the entire Jewish population of the period. In actual fact Jesus and his
followers stood in concert with a significant part of the Jewish
community in opposing the R o m a n s and the oppressive priestly elite
of the Jerusalem T e m p l e . In a real way his death bore witness to the
same ideals proclaimed by other rabbis.
25
T h e Jewish historian Ellis Rivkin has brought out as well as anyone

the connections b e t w e e n J e s u s and Judaism relative to the Crucifix
ion. He insists that for a proper understanding of Jesus' Crucifixion
w e need to replace the question who crucified him with the question
what crucified him. As Rivkin interprets the events, Jesus died a victim
of R o m a n imperial policy. His death was ordered by the type of
political regime which throughout history has eliminated those w h o
have stood u p for h u m a n freedom, insight, and a n e w way of
understanding h u m a n interrelationships. T h o s e J e w s w h o might
have collaborated wth the R o m a n s in J e s u s ' execution deserve to be
c o n d e m n e d in Rivkin's view. T h e Jewish masses, however, were
greatly oppressed u n d e r the R o m a n colonial government, so much so
that they would undertake an outright revolt against its tyrannical
authority less than thirty years later. Hence, rather than serving as
The time has come to eliminate the term "Old Testament"

from the Christian vocabulary about the Bible and to use
instead the term "Hebrew Scriptures."
J e s u s ' executioners, the majority of the Jewish population, insists

Rivkin, saw in his Crucifixion "their o w n plight of helplessness,
humiliation and subjection."
Another important element in the restoration of the Jewish context
of Christianity is a deeper appreciation within the church of the first
part of our Biblethe H e b r e w Scriptures. T o o often Christians have
simply looked u p o n the so-called Old T e s t a m e n t as a prelude to the
spiritual insights found in the N e w Testament. W e need to increase
our consciousness of the Hebrew Scriptures as a source of ongoing
religious m e a n i n g for us in their o w n right, and not merely as a
backdrop for the teaching of Jesus. It is helpful here to recall that for
Jesus and his apostles there was n o " O l d " Testament. T h e y viewed
the H e b r e w Bible as "the Scriptures," as standing at the core of their
religious identity. This is an attitude contemporary Christianity needs
to recapture. Contemporary Christian spirituality and preaching
remain peripherally influenced at best b y the Hebrew Scriptures.
T h e time has c o m e to eliminate the term " O l d T e s t a m e n t " from the
Christian vocabulary about the Bible. T h o u g h admittedly the word old
can connote " r e v e r e n c e " or "long-standing experience," used in
reference to the first part of the Bible it tends to create an attitude that
26
these pre-Christian books are inferior a n d outdated in their religious

outlook w h e n compared with passages of the N e w Testament. In such
a context the H e b r e w Scriptures at best appear as a foreword to the
fullness of faith found in the Gospels and Epistles and at worst as
works motivated by legalism a n d spiritual shallowness which
Christians can ignore without in any w a y impoverishing their
spirituality. Continued use of the term " O l d T e s t a m e n t " tends to keep
Christians from the realization that the H e b r e w Scriptures contain
rich spiritual insights vital in their o w n right. It likewise continues to
give credence to the discredited contrast b e t w e e n Christianity as a
religion of love with Judaism as a faith perspective marked by cold
legalism.
Willingness on the part of the church to forego use o f the term " O l d
T e s t a m e n t " would serve as a demonstration of good will in the
dialogue. Such a deliberate adjustment of language would also
manifest in a powerful w a y a fundamental shift in the church's
theological outlook vis-^-vis Judaism. It would mark a significant
m o v e away from the traditionally negative approach, with its stress
on invalidity a n d outdatedness, toward the clear affirmation of the
continuing vitality of the Jewish people's faith perspective.
As m u c h as the n e w Christian interest in the H e b r e w Scriptures is to
be applauded a n d hopefully increased, it also represents a danger to
an adequate understanding of Judaism within the church. Christians
may fall into the trap of thinking that the only valid and living form of
Judaism is that found in the Hebrew Scriptures. This can easily
The period 150 B.C.E. to C.E. 50 was not altogether sterile

religiously and gave rise to many new, creative groups,
including the Pharisees.
develop into an attitude that sees postbiblical Jewish religious

expression as totally shallow and decadent. This is far from the
historical situation. Central to avoiding this dangerous trap is a
renewed appreciation of growth during the S e c o n d Temple period in
Judaism.
Most Christians remain unaware of a gap in the Bible of
approximately two centuries. T h e last book of the H e b r e w Scrip
turesthe S e c o n d Book of Maccabeesdates from around 150 B.CE,
A n d even if w e include the W i s d o m literature written in Greek around
27
90 B.c.E. (and not part o f the Jewish or Protestant canon), much more
than a hundred years passed until the appearance of the initial Pauline
letters around C.E. 5 0 . T h e usual Christian attitude has b e e n that this
was a very sterile period in Judaism in which people had lost touch
with the soul of the Jewish religious tradition represented by the
Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Psalms. A n e m p t y legalism
dominated J e w i s h faith at this time a n d h e n c e m a n y Jews were
h u n g r y for the n e w spiritual insights offered b y the early churchso
ran the classic stereotype. A s a result of a growing body of Christian
and Jewish scholarship on this historical period, w e n o w know that
such a picture of a sterile, legalistic Judaism in the S e c o n d Temple
period, or what Christians sometimes term the "intertestamental
period," is far from accurate. True, s o m e segments of Judaism had
fallen into such a state. But n e w creative J e w i s h groups emerged on
the scene to counter this regressive tendency. A n d it was these
innovative forms of Judaism that m o s t directly influenced the
teaching of Jesus and the structures of early Christianity.
A m o n g these n e w innovative groups the Pharisees were the most
prominent. T h e mention of the term " P h a r i s e e " typically conjures u p
a m o n g Christians images of fierce opposition to Jesus, of harsh
legalism, of shallow piety. T h e Pharisees s e e m to most churchpeople
to b e representatives of everything J e s u s c o n d e m n e d . This under
standing of the Pharisees, however, symbolizes the general ignorance
of S e c o n d T e m p l e Judaism in the church. Fortunately an increasing
n u m b e r o f biblical scholars a n d historians h a v e b e g u n to question this
Christian bias.
The Pharisees sought to make the Torah c o m e alive in every Jew by
adapting its commandments to changing life patterns in Judaism.
Contemporary research has shown that the Pharisees were n o strangers
to the deepest meaning of the law. It n o w appears likely that Jesus
attacked only certain groups within the Pharisee movement, not the
movement as a whole. A n d even in these controversies their differences
did not obliterate the similarity of their basic position on what it meant
to be a religious person. In large measure Jesus' battle with "the
Pharisees" needs to be understood as an "in-house" struggle.
As with most scholarly questions about the ancient period, there is
far from full agreement a m o n g present-day researchers about all
aspects o f the Pharisee m o v e m e n t . H e n c e s o m e caution is necessary
in reaching conclusions about Pharisaism itself a n d its relationships to
Jesus and the early church. But running through the various
viewpoints are s o m e trends which include the following.
28
Central to the Pharisee challenge to the established form of Judaism

after the rebuilding of the Second Temple stood a n e w outlook o n the
relationship between G o d and the h u m a n person. It was o n e marked
by a notion of a far more personal and intimate divine-human link
than previous expression of Judaism could conceive. This n e w
perception represented so fundamental a change in religious
consciousness that the Pharisees felt obligated to replace the n a m e s
for G o d found in the Hebrew Scriptures with ones more expressive of
the n e w union b e t w e e n G o d and the h u m a n family which they had
uncovered. A m o n g the principal n a m e s they applied to G o d was
" F a t h e r . " While this term has definite limitations in our era because of
its inability to express fully the femininity of G o d , in its setting it spoke
not of gender superiority but of a heightened sense of the profoundity
of G o d ' s link to each individual person.
This n e w sense of divine-human intimacy ultimately undercut the
basis of the intermediary/hereditary system o f religious elitism which
prevailed in the older Sadducean temple/priesthood concept of Jewish
religion, up till then the dominant form of Judaism. As the Pharisees
saw it, all m e n and w o m e n , n o matter what their social status or
bloodline, had such standing in the sight of G o d that they could relate
to G o d on a personal basis without further need to use the temple
priests as intermediaries. T h e prominent Jewish scholar on Phari
saism, Jacob Neusner, has written the following about the ultimate
implications of this aspect of the m o v e m e n t in his volume From Politics
To Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Prentice-Hall, 1973): " T h e
Pharisees thus arrogated to themselvesand to all Jews equallythe
status of Temple priests, and performed actions restricted to priests
on account of that status. T h e table of every J e w in his h o m e was seen
as being like the table of the Lord in the Jerusalem Temple. The
c o m m a n d m e n t , ' Y o u shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy people,'
was taken literally: everyone is a priest, everyone must keep the
priestly l a w s . "
The consciousness transformation regarding the God-human
relationship led the Pharisees to undertake a major overhaul of the
liturgical, ministerial, and institutional life of S e c o n d T e m p l e Judaism
and, in so doing, lay some of the groundwork for the early Christian
church. Picking u p the mantle of the prophets, the Pharisees hoped to
translate prophetic ideals into the daily lives of the Jewish people of
their time.
A m o n g the revolutionary changes brought about by the Pharisees
29
was the replacement of the temple as the central religious institution

in Jewish life with a n e w organizing center called the synagogue.
Among the contributions of the Pharisees were the

development of the synagogue and the growth of the role of
the rabbi.
Frequently temple and synagogue are employed as synonyms. This

regrettably has the effect of blurring the profound differences in their
basic conception. T h e temple was seen primarily as the house of God,
the synagogue as the house of the people of God. T h e distinction was
crucial. T h e temple served chiefly as a locale for cult and sacrifice. T h e
synagogue, as developed by Pharisaism, was intended to go far
beyond this goal. It w a s designed to address the total needs of the
communityprayer, study, justice.
T h e second innovative feature of the Pharisee revolution was the
growth of the role of the rabbi w h o gradually replaced the temple
priest as the central religious figure in Judaism. T h e rabbi's task was to
interpret and, more importantly, to specify the religious obligations
incumbent u p o n a believing J e w . H e was neither prophet nor priest.
A n y layman could b e c o m e a rabbi regardless o f his birth. T h e rabbinic
role was an acquired not an inherited o n e in Second T e m p l e Judaism.
It w a s based o n the strength of a person's service to the community.
T h e crucial dimension of the rabbinate that needs careful scrutiny is
the fact that the rabbi was not a cultic figure. His role was one of
instruction and interpretation. W h a t is especially significant about the
rabbinate is its noncultic status. A person w h o s e primary mission
consisted in offering specific interpretations with respect to the
religious and social problems of the day gradually replaced the temple
priest as the principal h u m a n symbol and representative of Jewish
religious commitment.
A n e w appreciation of the synagogue and the rabbinate as
developed b y the Pharisees will provide a sound basis for discussions
about lay ministry and about such movements as the "basic
c o m m u n i t i e s " springing u p in Latin America and elsewhere. It will
also aid Christian self-understanding in other central areas such as
eucharistic theology, the theological meaning of tradition, afterlife,
and social ethics.
In view of this positive link between Christianity and Pharisaism w e
30
n e e d to take u p the supposed hostility in the Synoptic Gospels

b e t w e e n Jesus a n d the Jewish m o v e m e n t . Several viewpoints have
e m e r g e d in recent scholarship. Prof. Paul Winter, for example, insists
that the fierce opposition b e t w e e n Jesus and " t h e Pharisees" depicts a
situation that came to pass well into the first century w h e n the church
and the synagogue had gone their separate ways. It was not
representative of the actual relationship in J e s u s ' lifetime.
A n o t h e r possible approach is based o n the research of the Israeli
N e w Testament scholar David Flusser. H e has s h o w n that there were
m a n y competing groups within the overall Pharisee m o v e m e n t and
they frequently spoke quite harshly about one another. In other
words, Jesus' condemnations m a y very well reflect internal disputes
rather than a total condemnation of Pharisaism.
Jesus seems most closely identified with what Flusser terms the
"love P h a r i s e e s , " those w h o m a d e the notion of love central to Jewish
religious belief and expression. In this perspective the Gospel
denunciations, even if they by chance reflect the authentic words of
Jesus, were aimed primarily at certain sectors of Pharisaism which, in
the j u d g m e n t of the " l o v e " Pharisees (including Jesus), were not
living up to the core ideals of the m o v e m e n t . In either case, the surface
antagonism b e t w e e n J e s u s and the Pharisees must be read in a far
more nuanced fashion than has generally been the case in
Christianity. Also, this surface antagonism should not blind
Christians to the profound debt both Jesus and the apostolic church
o w e d to this creative Jewish m o v e m e n t .
Turning to more contemporary questions in the dialogue, w e come
head-on to the question of Israel. It cannot be avoided. This question
is not simply a political matter, though surely the politics of the
Middle East will enter the contemporary conversations between
Christians and Jews.
No discussion of the State of Israel in the dialogue will

prove successful unless Christians clearly acknowledge the
vulnerability of Israel.
N o discussion of the State of Israel in the dialogue will prove

successful unless Christians clearly acknowledge the vulnerability of
Israel. It remains deeply affected by the general turbulence in Middle
East politics, superpower rivalries, a n d a pervasive anti-Israel
31
theological stance in Islamic religious circles. Israel's national ethos

remains strongly conditioned by the trauma of the Holocaust and the
memory of persecution in Arab lands and in the U S S R . As a survivor
of Auschwitz once told m e on a late-night walk o n his kibbutz in
northern Galilee, " Y o u must understand that this land is our
resurrection." T o o few Christians, especially m a n y of those prepared
to criticize Israeli governmental policy, appreciate or affirm this
continuing sense of vulnerability. All such criticism from Christians
that fails to display a deep sensitivity for this understandable sense of
J e w i s h vulnerability deserves to fall o n hard ground.
A n d the Holocaust too cannot b e forgotten in any discussion of
Israel. T h e moral stain remains deeply e m b e d d e d in the Christian
soul. While proper response to Christian failure during the Nazi
period should not b e excessive guilt but continued support of the
people Israel today in both their religious a n d political dimensions,
the Holocaust must remain central to Christian m e m o r y . A n d while
the establishment o f the State of Israel in 1948 should n e v e r be viewed
as a r e c o m p e n s e for the Holocaust from the W e s t , the deep, abiding
connection b e t w e e n the two events needs to be understood b y
Christians.
O n c e Christians have grasped this Jewish sense of vulnerability
then they properly m a y raise questions about changing aspects o f
Israeli life a n d policy. For one, Christians will n e e d to understand
better the gradual e m e r g e n c e o f Oriental Jewry, largely people w h o
fled to Israel from Arab countries. T h e y are acquiring a n e w social and
political p r o m i n e n c e that in all likelihood will profoundly affect the
overall ethos of the country and in time have important consequences
for the Christian-Jewish dialogue. S o m e have seen the Oriental Jewish
c o m m u n i t y as archconservative in terms o f a political accommodation
with the Palestinians. But s o m e Oriental Jewish leaders such as
former Israeli president Yitzhak N a v o n have cautioned about any
easy assumptions in this regard. O v e r and above politics there is the
whole range of Oriental Jewish religious thought and liturgy which
has hardly penetrated Christian consciousness in the dialogue. T h e
ascendency of Oriental J e w r y m a y be the catalyst for freeing the
Christian-Jewish dialogue from its almost exclusively Western context
up till n o w .
T h e issue of Israeli treatment of Arabs, both in Israel proper w h e r e
m a n y have s p o k e n of a growing marginalization of Israel's Arab
citizens and in the administered areas, will grow as an issue in
Christian-Jewish relations. Certain Christian groups have tended to
32
JEWS AND CHRISTIANS
overexaggerate the negative record of Israel in this regard. But there

are definite problems of domestic prejudice as well as seeming
annexationist policies on the West Bank that can n o longer be swept
under the carpet in the dialogue. This also holds true for the case of
Jewish terrorism against Christian and Muslim institutions in the
country. While such Jewish terrorism pales in comparison to terrorism
from the Arab side, it represents a growing concern, as does
increasing ultraorthodox Jewish influence in the city o f Jerusalem.
Finally, Israel's growing involvement in political events in Central
America and Africa must be addressed. This involvement is the basis
for increased criticism of Israel within the churches by those with little
direct interest in the Middle East. While firmly resisting the attempts
in s o m e church and political circles to isolate Israel totally as a political
pariah, there is room here for serious questions b y Christians to their
Jewish partners in the dialogue. Jewish appeals to Israeli self-interest,
while to be taken seriously, will not end the concern o n the part of
Christians. Apart from political dimensions of the Arab-Israeli
conflict, the dialogue will also need to turn its attention to what
scholars have termed the Jewish "land tradition," a tradition with
deep roots in the H e b r e w Scriptures. Pioneering work by several
Christian scholars will prove especially useful in the discussion.
Prominent a m o n g these scholars are W . D . Davies, Walter Bruegge-
m a n n , and J o h n T o w n s e n d . Although differences exist in their
perspectives, they nonetheless seem to agree that (1) the New
Testament does not clearly rule out Judaism's historic claims to the
land; and (2) that land remains important for Christian faith as well, at
least to the extent that the process of salvation in Christianity is deeply
rooted in the process of h u m a n history. (Davies's most recent volume,
The Territorial Dimension of Judaism, is especially strong in bringing out
the land dimension of Judaism.)
While recognizing that the theological approach to the land may be
o n e of the basic differences between Christianity and Judaism,
Christians can still profit greatly both in their o w n self-understanding
as well as in their understanding of J e w s through discussions of the
land tradition. Christians can also properly address s o m e questions to
their Jewish brothers and sisters. Does the land tradition in Judaism
necessarily demand perpetual sovereignty over a piece of real estate in
the Middle East? Could the values inherent in the land tradition be
sustained under some other political arrangement? Put another way,
is the nation-state defide in Jewish theology? Another major question
concerns the relationship between Zionism and the more universal-
33
istic trends found in S e c o n d T e m p l e Judaism which s e e m to modify in

the eyes of s o m e scholars the emphasis on a particular piece of
territory as the locale for G o d ' s presence. Lastly, the whole question of
non-Jewish minorities in Israel a n d h o w their role is understood in a n
essentially Jewish state has yet to be handled adequately by Zionist
ideology. Christians, in light of their o w n continuing reflections on
church-state relations, can profitably probe their Jewish colleagues o n
this score.
N o contemporary encounter b e t w e e n J e w s and Christians can
avoid the Holocaust. O n the one hand, the philosophy of Naziism was
deeply anti-Christian in orientation and m a n y Christians suffered as a
result. O n the other h a n d , traditional Christian anti-Semitism, while it
did not directly generate the Holocaust, played a central role in its
success. It was truly an indispensable seedbed for the Final Solution.
In this regard the words of Fr. Edward Flannery, o n e of the pioneers
in the dialogue, are very instructive: "In the final analysis, s o m e
degree of the charge (against the church) must be validated. Great or
Jews and Christians must probe the Holocaust together,

for Naziism was not simply another example of human
brutality on a mass scaleit marked the beginning of a new
era in human history.
small, the apathy or silence was excessive. T h e fact remains that in the
twentieth century of Christian civilization a genocide o f six million
innocent people was perpetrated in countries with many centuries of
Christian tradition and b y h a n d s that were in m a n y cases Christian."
So the church must engage in serious reflection o n this failure to
confront the Nazi attack o n the J e w s and to ascertain whether this
classic anti-Semitic tradition remains alive in any form today.
A n d together with the Jewish community there is need for
Christians to probe the implications of the Holocaust for contempo
rary culture. For Naziism was not simply another example of h u m a n
brutality on a massive scale. It truly marked the beginning of a new era
in h u m a n history. It remains an "orienting e v e n t " for Christians,
J e w s , and the whole of Western society, as Rabbi Irving Greenberg
has rightly argued.
T h e Holocaust w a s a highly planned and finely executed attempt at
34
the elimination of people the Nazis were convinced had no further

role to play in the future development of humanity, First of all, this
meant the Jews w h o were regarded as " v e r m i n . " But it also included
the Gypsies, Slavs (especially the Poles), gay people, and the
physically/mentally incapacitated. This plan was made possible by the
coming together of modern technology and bureaucracy and
d e p e n d e d in part at least on ideas generated by some of the giants of
modern Western thought. It also succeeded only because of the
cooperation extended b y some o f the best minds in Germany,
churchpeople included. It systematically reduced masses of people to
n u m b e r s , to n o n h u m a n products w h o s e remains could b e used for
research and profit.
The final area for consideration is the theological. It is a very difficult
and sensitive o n e . For what seems necessary is a significant
restatement of Christian self-identity relative to Judaism. Tradition
ally Christianity has expressed the meaning of the Christ-event in
terms of Jewish displacement. J e w s were left at the starting gate after
their failure to acknowledge Christ. T h e theological challenge before
the church today is to express in a meaningful way the conclusion
reached by Paul in R o m a n s that the Jewish covenant remains valid
after the Christ-event while retaining the unique revelation to be
found in the Incarnation. Put another way, how can Christian
doctrine create authentic theological space for Judaism? T h e answer
w e give here will never be in complete harmony with Jewish
self-expression. J e w s and Christians have some basic differences in
faith perception. But especially in light of Auschwitz w e have an
obligation, as Jurgen Moltmann has reminded us, to search for ways
of eliminating our traditional displacement theology of Judaism. I
The most promising theological avenue to explore is that

of seeing Judaism and Christianity as two distinctive
religions, each with a unique faith despite their historic
links.
have undertaken this effort in m y volume Christ in Light of the

Christian-Jewish Dialogue. Paul van Buren is at work on a multivolume
effort along these lines. Other Christian scholars are working on
pieces of a n e w Jewish-Christian relational model for theology. T h e
effort, still very m u c h in its infancy, must continue.
35
At this m o m e n t n o single theological reformulation of Christianity's

relationship to Judaism has w o n general acceptance. T h e only areas in
which there is significant c o n s e n s u s a m o n g scholars who have
studied the question are (1) that the Christ-event did not invalidate the
Jewish faith perspective, (2) that Christianity is not superior to
Judaism in every way, nor is it simply the fulfillment of Judaism, and
(3) that Christianity needs to incorporate dimensions from its original
Jewish context, most notably the sense of rootedness in history. T h e
respective positions advocated b y dialogue scholars that Christianity
is essentially Judaism for the Gentiles, or that the Christ-event is o n e
a m o n g several messianic experiences in world history, or that
Christianity and Judaism are distinctive religions, each with a unique
faith perspective despite their historic links, have each drawn support
from several scholars. It is m y belief that the third position remains the
most promising for further development.
Within this third approach certain suppositions are crucial. The first is
that any christology which simply presents the meaning of Jesus'
ministry as the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecies is invalid.
Others include the recognition that the basic link between Jesus and
Judaism is to be found in his appropriation of the revolutionary vision of
Pharisaism, the realization that the basic difference between Christian
ity and Judaism lies not so much in fulfillment/nonfulfillment as in the
notion of the Incarnation and the awareness that Judaism's principal
contribution to christological thought comes from an understanding of
the Exodus covenantal tradition and the sense of peoplehood and
salvation within history that this tradition entails. Additionally this
perspective recognizes that Christian-Jewish dialogue on the christolo
gical questions has implications for the church throughout the world
and not only in the North Atlantic region as has sometimes b e e n
implied. Because there is n o way fully to grasp christology without
understanding the thoroughly Jewish context of Jesus' ministry,
Christian knowledge of Judaism becomes an imperative, irrespective of
the presence or absence of Jews in a particular geographic area.
Likewise it is aware that Christianity and Judaism will both have to
prepare themselves to relate their covenantal theological traditions to
other world religions and ideologies. T h e growing interdependence of
the world community makes this a theological as well as an ethical
imperative for both faith communities.
In summary, the age o f proselytizing, prejudice, a n d confrontation
b e t w e e n Judaism and Christianity is over. Despite continued tensions
the age of dialogue has begun.
36
THE NEW TESTAMENT RECONSIDERED:
RECENT POST-HOLOCAUST SCHOLARSHIP
CLARK M. WILLIAMSON
Contemporary scholars s e e k to correct an intepretive error

made a century ago.
First, let us make our presuppositions clear. Whether there is
anti-Judaism in the N e w Testament or in certain selected documents or
passages within it is a matter of serious scholarly dispute today. It is not
the purpose of this essay to enter into this dispute. W h a t is not in
question is that there are strongly negative images of Jews and Judaism
in the N e w Testament and that what we may fairly call "anti-Judaism"
has long constituted a frame of reference in terms of which these images
and the larger N e w Testament have been interpreted. It is this
interpretive scheme which is being decisively challenged by several
recent scholars. This challenge to the anti-Judaic hermeneutical model
arose before the period of Hitler's Holocaust against the Jews (1933-45);
it is only since the Holocaust, however, that it has been picked u p and
renewed within the discipline of biblical scholarship. The purpose of
this essay is to indicate the character of the alternative proposal in the
hope that ministers of the gospel will familiarize themselves with it and
make use of it in their preaching and teaching.
Before depicting the constructive alternative, w e must describe the
anti-Jewish model of N e w Testament interpretation. In the light of
this description, the significance o f the emerging n e w paradigm will
be more clearly visible. Three twentieth-century Christian scholars,
Charlotte Klein, George Foot M o o r e , and E . P. Sanders, have
delineated the structure of anti-Jewish biblical scholarship.
Essentially, Klein's work focuses o n four areas of concern: the
so-called "late J u d a i s m , " law and legalistic piety, the Pharisees, and
Clark M. Williamson teaches at the Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis, and wrote
Has God Rejected His People? Anti-Judaism in the Christian Church, published in 1982. One of his
recent periodical contributions was an article on theodicy, "Things Do Go Wrong (and
Right)," which appeared in Journal of Religion, January, 1983. His current research interests
include a rethinking of christology after the Holocaust.
37
1
Jewish responsibility for the Crucifixion. Her careful analysis of
scores of G e r m a n biblical scholars can only be briefly surveyed here.
As a rule, they fix the n a m e of ''late J u d a i s m " (emphasis mine) on that
phase of Israelite religion running from Ezra and Nehemiah and the
return from Exile to the period of the revolt of Bar Kochba. The very
n a m e they use for it indicates that they regard it as Judaism in decline
and on the way to its o w n death, a Judaism in relation to which Jesus,
Paul, and Christianity can only be understood in terms of the starkest
contrast. Overwhelmingly, G e r m a n scholars characterize this Ju
daism as inauthentic, a Judaism that turned its back on genuine faith
in the Lord, the G o d of Israel, and the message of the prophets.
Henceforth, Judaism is o n the wrong track, having abandoned its true
faith. Georg Fohrer once said that it failed in its "divine task b y
constantly falling away from the w a y of life imposed on [it] . . . and
wanting to use G o d merely as metaphysical security for [its] own
2
l i f e . " (Although typical of Fohrer's earlier views, this kind of remark
is n o longer indicative of his thought.)
Late Judaism is described, hence, as an absurd result of a decadent,
" b l i n d " rabbinic scholarship that is exaggeratedly preoccupied with
the letter of the law. It mistakenly sought to re-establish temple
worship and the political security of the people in a state of their own,
failing to realize that J e w s are a religious community rather than a
nation and that ideally they should live under nomadic conditions,
wandering a m o n g the nations, to ensure the purity of the central
Jewish message of freedom. It is incredible that Augustine's old
theology of the wandering Jew should have itself found a h o m e in
modern, ostensibly "critical" biblical scholarship! But here it is,
together with its obvious implications, for anti-Jewish thinkers, for
contemporary international affairs: the State of Israel is a theological
mistake of late Judaism.
" L a t e " Judaism, then, is both preparatory for and inferior to
Christianity. Jesus is interpreted as having rejected this " o l d " Judaism
and, with his words and work, it no longer forms a part of the history
of Israel. In h i m and in his Crucifixion by Jews, Jewish history comes
to an end. O n this model, " l a t e " Judaism was in a state of decadence,
orthodoxy, and legalism. Its faith had b e c o m e externalized and rigid;
G o d had b e c o m e distant and the prophetic message forgotten. Jesus
decisively rejects this old, dead Judaism.
L a w and legalistic piety typify " l a t e " Judaism and are condemned.
That Torah is hardly rendered with accuracy as " l a w " is not
acknowledged. Joachim Jeremias goes so far as to call legalistic piety
38
NEW TESTAMENT RECONSIDERED
3
the " c a n c e r " of J u d a i s m . Such piety "separates us from G o d . "
Consequently, legalistic exegesis of the O l d Testament is "blind."
O n l y the church can read the Scriptures. Legalistic J e w s were "deaf to
the g o s p e l , "
Jeremias is or is thought to be by some a counterweight to Rudolf
Bultmann in N e w Testament scholarship. Both share a c o m m o n
failing, however: neither k n e w Second Temple Judaism from its own
sources and each was quite capable of caricaturing it. Bultmann's
anti-Jewish remarks are scattered throughout his writings. Critics of
Bultmann, however, sometimes go overboard and charge him with
anti-Semitism, which is racist Jew-hatred and something different
from harboring negative images of first-century Judaism. In an
address called " T h e Task of Theology in the Present Situation,"
delivered on M a y 2, 1933, Bultmann declared:
it is clear that we have to decide whether Christian faith is to be valid

for us or not. It, for its part, can relinquish nothing of its nature and
claim; for 'verbum Domini manet in aeternum.' And we should as
scrupulously guard ourselves against falsifications of the faith by
national religiosity as against a falsification of national piety by
4
Christian trimmings. The issue is either/or!
Whatever his failings, Bultmann never lost sight of the promise and
c o m m a n d of the gospel.
The third major theme in the anti-Jewish interpretive model is the
Pharisees, w h o continue to be represented as the enemies of Jesus'
teaching. This theme can carry over even into liberation theologies.
W h e n Jon Sobrino discusses Jesus' approach to prayer, h e does so
5
under the rubric o f " J e s u s ' Criticism o f Contemporary P r a y e r . " H e
starts with the Lukan version of the parable of the Pharisee and the
publican, in which, he says, " J e s u s c o n d e m n s the prayer of the
Pharisees [note the plural] because it is the self-assertion of an
egotistical T and hence vitiated at its very c o r e . " Sobrino transforms a
parable into a general indictment. T h e Pharisee's "pole of reference"
is not to God but to himself. Also, the Pharisee is " e v e n less oriented
toward other h u m a n beings. He holds t h e m in c o n t e m p t . . . and he
thanks G x l that h e is not like t h e m " (Christology at the Crossroads,
p. 147). Pharisaic prayer is a mechanical ceremony in self-deception.
The issue of Jesus' understanding of prayer is used merely as an
example; on every point Jesus contradicts the teaching of the
Pharisees. T h e way Sobrino, following Jeremias, k n o w s this is by
39
applying the "criterion of dissimilarity" to the figure of the historical

Jesus.
Last, Jewish guilt in the death of Jesus is the theme in which the
anti-Jewish reading of the N e w Testament reaches its zenith. Klein
cites Karl Rahner as stating that " t h e crucified Lord is betrayed and
abandoned by his friends, rejected b y his people, repudiated by the
Church o f the Old T e s t a m e n t . " Jeremias claims: "It was an act of
unparalleled risk which Jesus performed w h e n , from the full power of
his consciousness of sovereignty, he openly and fearlessly called . . .
[the Pharisees] to repentance, and this act brought him to the c r o s s . "
In the last analysis, the religious leaders of Judaism have Jesus killed,
because of his teaching. H e "is eventually c o n d e m n e d because of his
conception of G o d " (Christology at the Crossroads, p. 206).
More than sixty years ago, George Foot Moore pointed out the
6
distorting nature of this anti-Jewish frame of reference. H e showed
that the interpretation of Judaism given by Ferdinand W e b e r in his
System der altsynagogalen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch, und Talmud
had for forty years " b e e n the chief resource of Christian writers w h o
have dealt ex professo or incidentally with Judaism at the beginning of
the Christian e r a " ("Christian Writers," p. 228). Weber's collection of
Jewish source-material reflected his view of Judaism: antithetical to
Christianity, based on the belief that works earn salvation, denying
the grace of G o d , a works-righteousness that was uncertain of its o w n
salvation. Moore also demonstrated that W e b e r ' s interpretation was
continued b y Emil Schurer and Wilhelm Bousset, two highly
influential scholars. O n their use of W e b e r , he comments that " a
delectus o f quotations m a d e for a polemic purpose is the last kind of a
source to which a historian should go to get a just notion of what a
religion really was to its a d h e r e n t s " ("Christian Writers," pp. 221-22).
Fifty-six years after Moore's classic essay, E. P. Sanders published his
Paul and Palestinian Judaism, in which h e delineates the historical course
7
of this "Weber/Schurer/Bousset description of J u d a i s m . " Sanders
corroborates Klein's demonstration that numerous biblical scholars
have persisted in using this model to interpret Judaism. His own fresh
and penetrating depiction of Second Temple Judaism leads him to
conclude that "the Judaism of before 70 kept grace and works in the
right perspective, did not trivialize the commandments of God, and was
not especially marked by hypocrisy." Sanders proceeds to note:
The frequent Christian charge against Judaism . . . is not that some

individual Jews misunderstood, misapplied and abused their
40
religion, but that Judaism necessarily tends towards petty legalism,

self-serving and self-deceiving casuistry, and a mixture of arrogance
and lack of confidence in God. But the surviving Jewish literature is
as free of these characteristics as any I have ever read (Paul and
Palestinian Judaism, p. 427).
W h a t one does find in reading Jewish literature is that the promise

and c o m m a n d of G o d are always kept in relationship to o n e another
and that the grace of G o d in choosing and ultimately redeeming Israel
is strongly emphasized.
Although brief, this description of the anti-Jewish interpretive
s c h e m e provides the backdrop against which the n e w scholarship can
be represented.
THE PHARISEES
In the anti-Jewish paradigm which has just b e e n reviewed, the

Pharisees are regarded as the chief examples of what went wrong in
Judaism; it was to what they stood for that Paul and Jesus were in total
opposition. Yet in the emerging scholarship it is precisely they w h o s e
reputation is most being refurbished. T w o points are involved, one
negative and o n e positive. Negatively, (a) Paul never mentions
Pharisees as his enemies, and (b) scholars increasingly recognize that
the conflicts b e t w e e n Jesus and the Pharisees in the Gospels are the
products of later hostility between the Pharisee leaders of the
synagogue and the church of the late first century. Writes Norman
Perrin:
So the diatribe against "the scribes and Pharisees" in Matthew 23

does not reflect a conflict between Jesus and the scribes and
Pharisees of his day, but one fifty years later between Matthew and
8
their descendants spreading their influence from Jamnia.
T h e late first century was a time of desperation and conflict for both
church and synagogue, each threatened by turmoil from within and
by the Roman Empire from without, and the later N e w Testament
writings reflect the Christian side of this dissension.
T h e positive point is that in the n e w scholarship the image of the
Pharisees is drastically improved. Here they are n o longer the
polemically targeted "chief h e a v i e s " o f the N e w Testament but,
rather, the o n e group of official J e w s (the others being the Sadducees,
41
the Zealots, a n d the E s s e n e s ) w h o are sufficiently popular with the

people to survive. All the rest, except for the followers of Jesus,
disappear.
The problem of reconstructing a historical picture of the Pharisees is
m u c h the same as that of retrieving the historical Jesus. W e have to
work backwards from later sources, sources motivated by other than
historical concerns. Nonetheless, a battery of scholars has devoted
m u c h attention to this quest and within the confines of historical
9
probability we can make the following p o i n t s .
The Pharisee m e t h o d of teaching, called the "oral T o r a h , " teaches
by w a y o f interpreting the written Torah; "it is written, but the
meaning is . . . . " M a t t h e w regularly attributes this m e t h o d to Jesus:
" Y o u have heard it said, but I say unto y o u , " a technical Pharisee
expression. T h e Pharisees also created the role of the rabbi, the o n e
w h o so teaches and w h o interprets, specifies, and transforms
In the new scholarship the image of the Pharisees is

drastically improved.
inherited teachings and obligations. All in all, the Gospels contain

forty-two references to Jesus as teacher/rabbi and h e teaches not only
by oral Torah but b y telling stories, also a favorite rabbinic approach.
W e are frequently told by the Synoptics that it was Jesus' custom to go
to the synagogue (Luke 4:16), the institution that embodied the
Pharisee type of faith.
As to content, the teachings attributed to Jesus are so remarkably
parallel to those of the liberal Pharisees, followers of Hillel (the
conservative Pharisees were of the school of Shammai) that Jacob
N e u s n e r declares: " S o m e of his [Hillel's] teachings are in spirit and
10
even in exact wording close to the teachings of J e s u s . " Jesus'
proclamation that " t h e Sabbath was made for man, not m a n for the
S a b b a t h " (Mark 2:27) reflects the Hillelite saying attributed to Rabbi
Jonathan b e n Joseph: "Scripture says, ' T h e Sabbath is holy for you'
(Exodus 31:14). This m e a n s it is given to you (man) not you to the
11
S a b b a t h . " J e s u s ' simplification of all the c o m m a n d m e n t s into two is
similar to what is found both in Hillel and Philo; his use of the S h e m a
("hear, O Israel") a n d his teachings o n prayer (both the Lord's Prayer
and the parable of the Pharisee and the publican) are in the Pharisee
42
tradition. Also, the Pharisees were highly self-critical to the extent that
the criticism of them attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, if authentic,
need be no more than Pharisee self-criticism. In spite of what the
anti-Jewish paradigm says, the Pharisees also laid great stress on the
12
all-presence of God (the Shekinah) and on the grace of G o d .
A great Jewish scholar of our time, Leo Baeck, a rabbi w h o survived
Theresienstadt and Hitler's attempted "final solution," sums it up this
way:
Jesus, in all of his traits, is completely a genuine Jewish character. A
man such as he could only grow up on the soil of Judaism.. . . Jesus
is a genuine Jewish personality, all of his striving and acting, his
bearing and feeling, his speech and his silence bear the stamp of the
Jewish manner, the imprint of Jewish idealism, and the best of what
Judaism gave and gives, but what only existed, at that time, in
Judaism. He was a Jew among Jews; out of no other people could a
man such as he have been able to have this effect; in no other people
13
could he have found the apostles who believed in h i m .
Jesus' ethical teachings seem clearly continuous with those of the

contemporary school of Hillel; w h e n the content differs, the method is
the same. Obviously there is much else in the sayings attributed to
J e s u s (eschatology and apocalyptic, the coming kingdom of G o d and
Jesus' role in that coming) which is beyond the scope of our discussion
here. T h e argument is not that Jesus was just another Pharisee or that
h e was in n o way different from them. Precision in this matter is
probably b e y o n d the reach of possibility.
The following do seem to be fair conclusions: (a) a more objective
view of the Pharisees results in a more favorable and less biased
picture of them; (b) the conflicts portrayed in the Gospels between
Jesus and the Pharisees are retrojected from the embattled situation of
the later first-century church; (c) ministers of the gospel should
familiarize themselves with this n e w scholarship on the Pharisees and
cease perpetuating negative images of the forebears of the synagogue
across the street; and (d) the good news of G o d is expressed in every
pericope of the Gospels, including the conflict stories. This good news
is what we should preach and teach, the promise of the love of God for
each and all and the c o m m a n d of G o d for justice to each and all.
PAUL
W h e n we turn to the Apostle Paul, w e find a wealth of scholarship

14
which takes a n e w look at the apostle to the G e n t i l e s . In spite of this
43
abundance of n e w scholarship, however, pastors will find that the

traditional anti-Jewish interpretation of Paul is still present in
commentaries o n his letters. For instance, in his commentary o n
Romans, M a t t h e w Black comments:
The key to an understanding of Paul's essential thesis is his

conviction of the total bankruptcy of contemporary Pharisaic
"scholasticism," which seemed to base the whole range of active
right relationships within the Covenant ("righteousness") on the
meticulous observation of the injunctions of the torah as expanded
in the "tradition of the elders." This was "legalistic righteousness,"
a form of ethics based entirely on a code, external and "written,"
losing sight entirely of the gracious personal Will of a holy and good
God, of which it was originally intended to be the divine vehicle of
15
expression.
W e r e the question for Paul indeed that of Pharisaism or the gospel,

it is striking that h e never once put it that way. Nor does he ever
juxtapose law and gospel. H e never speaks of Pharisaism. In the o n e
passage w h e r e he uses " P h a r i s e e , " h e says:
If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I
have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of
the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a
Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness
under the law blameless (Phil. 3:4-6).
Paul will express regret for having persecuted the church (Gal. 1:13),
but h e never expresses regret for having b e e n a Pharisee. A n d his o n e
autobiographical c o m m e n t o n his relationship to the law, found in the
passage quoted above, states that as to righteousness under it he was
"blameless."
In Paul among Jews and Gentiles, Krister Stendahl interprets Paul's
thinking as having had as a basic concern the relation between Jews
and Gentiles with which, he says, the main lines of Pauline
interpretation " h a v e for m a n y centuries b e e n out of t o u c h . . . " (p. 1).
Stendahl seeks to s h o w that Paul's doctrine of justification was
worked out in order to defend the rights of Gentile converts to be full
and genuine heirs to the promises of G o d to Israel and not as a
response to the kinds of pangs of conscience which Luther had with
the law. H e regards R o m a n s 9 - 1 1 as the climax of Paul's most famous
letter, i.e., Paul's reflections on the relation between the church and
the Jewish people. Paul does not say that ultimately Israel will accept
44
Jesus as the Christ but simply that "all Israel will be s a v e d " (11:26),
and Paul writes this whole section of R o m a n s (10:18-11:36) without
using the n a m e of Jesus Christ. T h e final doxology in the passage is
the only one in Paul without a christological reference. Says Stendahl:
It is tempting to suggest that in important respects Paul's thought

here approximates an idea well documented in later Jewish thought
from Maimonides to Franz Rosenzweig. Christianity . . . is seen as
the conduit of Torah, for the declaration of both monotheism and
the moral order to the Gentiles. The differences are obvious, but the
similarity should not be missed: Paul's reference to God's
mysterious plan is an affirmation of a God-willed coexistence
between Judaism and Christianity in which the missionary urge to
convert Israel is held in check (p. 4).
In working his w a y toward this conclusion, Stendahl makes several

points. First, following his method of insisting on a simple reading of
Stendahl argues that we must see Paul's experience on the

Damascus Road as a call rather than a conversion.
the text unobscured by what w e already think w e know, he contends

that w e must see Paul's experience on the Damascus Road as a call
rather than a conversion. Conversion usually connotes a change from
one religion to another, in this case from Judaism to Christianity. Paul,
h o w e v e r , was not converted but called to the specific task of
apostleship to the Gentiles. O f his o w n experience, Paul says: " w h e n
he w h o had set m e apart before I was born, and had called m e through
his grace, was pleased to reveal his S o n to m e , in order that I might
preach him a m o n g the Gentiles . . . " (Gal. 1:15-16). In this comment
are found clear allusions to those calls issued to Isaiah and Jeremiah
that they b e c o m e prophets to the nations (Isa, 49:1, 6; Jer. 1:5). Rather
than being a conversion, Paul's experience brought him to a n e w
understanding of the law " w h i c h is otherwise an obstacle to the
G e n t i l e s " (p. 9 ) . A careful reading of the three accounts of Paul o n the
Damascus Road yields the same result (Acts 9, 2 2 , and 26). Paul did
not change his religion: "It is obvious that Paul remains a J e w as he
fulfills his role as an Apostle to the G e n t i l e s " (p. 11).
Second, Stendahl notes that "justification" and words related to it
45
appear pervasively in the Pauline epistles, while "forgiveness" and

the verb "to forgive" shine by their absence.
Paul's doctrine of justification by faith has its theological context in

his reflection on the relation between Jews and Gentiles, and not
within the problem of how man is to be saved, or how man's deeds
are to be accounted, or how the free will of individuals is to be
asserted or checked (p. 26).
W h e n e v e r w e find Paul discussing justification, a quick check of the

context will disclose, lying near at h a n d , a specific reference to J e w s
and Gentiles. For example:
For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also?
Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the
circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised
through their faith (Rom. 3:28-30).
Paul goes on to c o m m e n t in this passage that to hold this view is to

uphold, not overthrow, the law.
This use of the doctrine of justification is continued by a student of
Paul w h o wrote to the Ephesians: " F o r by grace you have b e e n saved
through faith"; a n d three verses later says, "Therefore remember that
at o n e time you Gentiles in the flesh . . . were . . . separated from
Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, a n d strangers to
the covenants of promise, having n o hope and without G o d in the
w o r l d " (Eph. 2 : 8 , 1 1 - 1 2 ) . T h e doctrine of justification, then, has not so
m u c h to do with the forgiveness of the individual as with the
salvation-historical inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of G o d .
Paul, says Stendahl, is " o u r champion, a J e w w h o b y vicarious
penetration gives to us Gentiles the justification for our claims to b e
G o d ' s children in J e s u s Christ" (p. 76).
Third, Stendahl issues a stern caution against our Protestant and
Western tendency to interpret Paul in the light of what he calls our
"introspective c o n s c i e n c e . " Usually we follow the Augustinian-
Lutheran interpretation of justification in terms of a struggle with the
conscience. Paul, however, had very little to say about his own sin,
whereas h e said a lot about his physical weakness, his "thorn in the
flesh" (pp. 40-52). Paul's o w n conscience was apparently quite
" r o b u s t " (p. 80). Luther's interpretation of Paul arose in the context of
late medieval piety in which Paul's c o m m e n t s on law, works, J e w s ,
46
Gentiles, etc., came to be regarded as a discussion of legalism and grace.

" W h e r e Paul was concerned about the possibility for Gentiles to be
included in the messianic community, his statements are now read as
answers to the quest for assurance about man's salvation out of a
c o m m o n human predicament" (p. 86). This Lutheran interpretation has
a considerable impact on the reading of specific texts. Reinterpretation
of a classic text is by no means illegitimate; indeed it is necessary if a text
is to remain a classic. Also, reinterpretation may make possible
significant theological insight, as in Luther's case it certainly did. To fail
to note that one is reinterpreting, however, can result, in this instance, in
attributing to Paul a view of Judaism that he did not hold and in missing
his salvation-historical way of saying that through the no of Jews to
Jesus, the W a y was opened for the gospel to move to the Gentiles.
In his "Paul and the Torah," Lloyd Gaston argues that Paul was an
apostle to the Gentiles, that he was commissioned b y the Jerusalem
Council (Acts 15; Gal. 2:1-10) to preach among the Gentiles, that he was
not commissioned to preach among Jews and that h e apparently never
did. All his letters were sent to congregations overwhelmingly made up
of Gentiles. Foremost among the problems faced by those Gentile
followers of Jesus was the right of Gentiles qua Gentiles to full
citizenship in the people of God without adopting the Torah of Israel.
Gaston's thesis is that legalism"the doing of certain works in order to
win God's favor and be counted righteousarose as a gentile and not a
Jewish problem at all" (p. 58). It was the God-fearers not under the
covenant who "had to establish their righteousness by the performance
of certain works, compounded by uncertainty as to what these works
should b e " (p. 58). The term "works of the law," not found in any
Jewish texts, refers to the Gentile habit of adopting certain Jewish
practices as a means of self-justification. H o w else can Paul address the
Galatians with the question: "Tell m e , you w h o desire to be under law,
do you not hear the law?" (4:21). In this passage, remarks Gaston, one
hears Paul the Pharisee who really knows the Torah replying to
amateurs who are only "playing with the idea" (p. 64). " W h e n Paul is
most negative about the law, he opposes it tothe law, i.e., the Torah!
Opposed to 'the other law, the law of sin' is 'the Torah of God' (Rom.
7:22f)" (p. 65).
Paul spoke as he did to Gentiles because with t h e m a new
vocabulary was necessary. He never spoke to t h e m of repentance, a
central Jewish idea, because "that m e a n t turning back to the G o d o f
the covenant, and Paul was interested in gentiles turning to him for
the first t i m e " (p. 65). G a s t o n ' s article is useful to ministers in helping
47
us to see clearly to w h o m and therefore to what problem Paul was

writing. Paul never wrote a letter to a synagogue of J e w s advocating
that they abandon the Torah. He did write against Gentiles infatuated
with Jewish w a y s and intent on playing at being J e w s and frequently
his criticism of t h e m w a s itself quite Jewish: "Circumcision indeed is
of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your
circumcision b e c o m e s uncircumcision" (Rom. 2:25).
According to J. Christiaan Beker in his Paul the Apostle: T h e Triumph
of God in Life and Thought, the model of Paul as the originator of catholic
Christianity was the model of Paul as having liberated Christianity
"from its so-called Jewish limitations. Paul the catholic theologian was
the 'universalist,' and the key to his achievement was his antipathy to
everything J e w i s h " (p. 339). Beker declares that "this popular picture
of Paul as the originator of catholic dogma and the e n e m y of Judaism
is completely e r r o n e o u s " (p. 340). Contrary to the traditional view,
Beker c o m m e n t s frequently u p o n Paul's "lack o f narcissistic
self-concern and introspection," and on his reticence "about his
conversion e x p e r i e n c e " as contrasted with the fact that Paul was
"extremely outspoken about his apostleship" (pp. 4-5). H e attributes
m u c h of the interest in Paul's " c o n v e r s i o n " to turn-of-the-century
scholarship with "its strong psychological and romantic interests"
and contends instead that Paul is preoccupied by his call to the
apostolate and gospel as service to the world (pp. 6, 8 , 1 0 ) . It is Beker
w h o points out, illuminatingly, that Paul never speaks of Christ as
having "fulfilled" the promises of G o d to Israel. In place of such an
expression, Paul says that Christ " b e c a m e a servant to the circumcised
to s h o w G o d ' s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to
the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify G o d for his
m e r c y " (Rom. 15:8-9). T h e verb bebaidsai is "to ratify or confirm."
Also, Beker points out that Paul maintains a tension between G o d
and Christ, so that Christ is never " f u s e d " with G o d (p. 344). For
instance, Paul tells the Corinthians, " L e t n o o n e boast of m e n . For all
things are y o u r s . . . and y o u are Christ's, and Christ is G o d ' s " (I Cor.
3:21,23). Paul's is a theocentric, not christocentric, christology. Paul's
christology is affirmed against the prospect or horizon of God's final
eschatological kingdom "that will break into history and transform all
creation in accord with the messianic p r o m i s e s " (p. 345), a
consummation which will take place only with Israel's participation in
it. T h e s e natural olive branches will be grafted back "into their own
olive tree" (Rom. 11:24; emphasis mine).
The works of Markus Barth, W . D . Davies, and E . P. Sanders are
48
also extremely valuable in interpreting Paul. M e m b e r s of the clergy

will find that they more than repay being studied. Also, they deal with
16
aspects of Paul not treated in this short e s s a y .
CONCLUSION
Scholars are now candid about Luther's vulgar writings against the
17
J e w s . In On the fetus and Their Lies (1543), Luther actually advised
Christians to burn synagogues, destroy the homes of Jews, and forcibly
remove Talmuds and Prayer Books from Jewish possession; finally, he
advocated the expulsion of all Jews from Saxony. And, in fact, they
were ousted from Saxony in 1543 as a result of Luther's writing and
preaching. All the more striking, then, is his earlier (1520) statement
which reflects the very core of Luther's theology:
it is not enough or in any sense Christian to preach the works, life, and
words of Christ as historical facts, as if the knowledge of these would
suffice for the conduct of life; yet this is the fashion among those who
must today be regarded as our best preachers. Far less is it sufficient or
Christian to say nothing at all about Christ and to teach instead the
laws of men and the decrees of the fathers. Now there are not a few
who preach Christ and read about him that they may move men's
affections to sympathy with Christ, to anger against the Jews, and
such childish and effeminate nonsense. Rather ought Christ to be
preached to the end that faith in him may be established that he may
not only be Christ, but be Christ for you and me, and that what is said
18
of him and is denoted in his name may be effectual in u s .
What Luther is saying here is that the business of Christian preaching

and teaching is to preach and teach the gospel, nothing else. Certainly
we are not to arouse anger against Jews in the name of Christ nor so to
tell the Christian story that our way of telling it will either invite such
anger or convey, subliminally or otherwise, the supposition that it is
Christian to tolerate it.
More fundamentally, we need to take much more radically the insight
of Paul and Luther that justification is by grace. The justification of
Gentile Christians is by the sheer grace of God and not by some
spurious "work" of overcoming Judaism. It is in the nefarious notion of
Christian negation and supersession of Judaism that works-righteous
ness achieves its final and most deadly triumph. Let us, instead, preach
Christ, to the end that faith in him may be established and that he may
be Christ for each of us.
49
NOTES
1. Charlotte Klein, Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology, trans. Edward Quinn (Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1978).
2. Georg Fohrer, Studien zur alttestamentlkhen Theologie und Geschichte, 1949-66 (Berlin:
1969), p. 37.
3. Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus, trans. JohnBowden
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971) p. 227.
4. Rudolf Bultmann, Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann, trans, and
introduced by Schubert M. Ogden (New York: Meridian Books, 1960), p. 165.
5. Jon Sobrino, Christology at the Crossroads, trans. John Drury (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis
Books, 1978), p. 146.
6. George Foot Moore, "Christian Writers on Judaism," Harimrd Theological Review 14
(July 1921): 197-254.
7. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), p. 47.
8. Norman Perrin, The New Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974), p. 171.
9. Included in helpful literature on the Pharisees are the following: William Coleman,
Those Pharisees (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1977); Michael Cook, "Jesus and the
PhariseesThe Problem as It Stands Today," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 15 (Summer 1978):
441*60; W. D. Davies, Introduction to Pftarisaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967); Louis
Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith (Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1938); R. Travers Herford, The Pharisees (New York: Macmillan, 1924);
George F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1927); Jacob Neusner, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of
Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973); John T. Pawlikowski, "On
Renewing the Revolution of the Pharisees: A New Approach to Theology and Politics,"
Cross Currents, 20 (Fall 1970): 415-34; Jakob J. Petuchowski, Heirs of the Pliarisees (New York:
Basic Books, 1970); William Phipps, "Jesus, the Prophetic Pharisee," Journal of Ecumenical
Studies 14 (Winter 1977): 17-31; Ellis Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978);
Ellis Rivkin, "Pharisees," Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1976).
10. Neusner, From Politics to Piety, p. 13.
11. Yoma, 85b.
12. See the section on "Grace" in C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, eds., A Rabbinic
Anthology (New York: Schocken Books, 1974).
13. Cited in Albert Freidlander, Leo Baeck: Teacher of Theresienstadt (New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1968), p. 58.
14. In addition to E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, cited above, the following are
helpful:
(1) Markus Barth, The Broken Wall: A Study of the Epistle to the Ephesians (Chicago: Judson
Press, 1959); Israel and the Church: Contribution to a Dialogue Vital for Peace (Richmond: John
Knox Press, 1969); Ephesians, 2 vols., The Anchor Bible (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974);
"St. PaulA Good Jew," Horizons in Biblical Theology, Vol. 1, 1980, pp. 7-45; "Jews and
Gentiles: The Social Character of Justification in Paul," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 5 (Spring
1968): 241-67; "Conversion and Conversation," Interpretation 17 (January 1963): 3-24; "Was
Paul an Anti-Semite?" Journal of Ecumenical Studies 5 (Winter 1968): 78-104.
(2) J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1980); Paul's Apocalyptic Gospel: The Coming Triumph of God (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1982).
(3) William D. Davies, Jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983); Paul
and Rabbinic Judaism, 4th edition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980); "Paul and the People of
Israel," New Testament Studies, 24 (October, 1977): 4-39.
50
(4) Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976).
(5) Lloyd Gaston, "Paul and the Torah," in Alan T. Davies, ed., Anti-Semitism and the
Foundations of Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), pp. 48-71.
15. Matthew Black, Romans (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1973), pp. 47-48.
16. The Gospel of John, of course, requires careful study by any member of the clergy who
wants, when preaching from it, not to be trapped by late first-century polemics. Helpful in
approaching it are the following: (1) C. K. Barrett, Essays on John (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1982); The Gospel According to St. John (London: S.P.C.K., 1955); The Gospel of John and
Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). (2) Raymond Edward Brown, The Community of
the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979); The Epistles of John, The Anchor Bible
(Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1982); The Gospel According to John, 2 vols., The Anchor Bible
(Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1966, 1970); (3) John T. Townsend, "The Gospel of John
and the Jews: The Story of a Religious Divorce," in AlanT. Davies, ed., AntiSemitism and the
Foundations of Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), pp. 72-97. (4) I have attempted to
survey recent scholarship on several important issues in the New Testament as they bear on
relations between Christians and Jews in my Has God Rejected His People? Anti-Judaism in the
Christian Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982), pp. 11-85.
17. See, e.g., Has God Rejected His People?, pp. 101-03.
18. Martin Luther: Selections from His Writings, ed., John Dillenberger (Garden City, N. Y.:
Anchor Books, 1961), pp. 65-66, from The Freedom of a Christian.
Scripture quotations unless otherwise noted are from the Revised Standard Version
Common Bible, copyrighted 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National
Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. and are used by permission.
51
THE JEWISH "NO" TO JESUS AND
THE CHRISTIAN "YES" TO JEWS
J. (COOS) SCHONEVELD
What is the situation in Germany today with regard

to the shameful anti-Judaism of many leading
Christian theological and biblical scholars?
W h a t influence has the Holocaust exerted on Christian thinking in
G e r m a n y and Europe with regard to the Jewish people? T h e answer to
this question really depends o n the extent to which the Holocaust has
b e e n allowed to exert an influence, because o n e widespread reaction
has b e e n to suppress the thought of the Holocaust and to continue
Christian thinking and theology as if the Holocaust had not taken
place. In that case the issue of Christian-Jewish relations is avoided.
O n the local level o n e can notice that members of church
congregations are eager to deal with this issue, but the pastors shun it,
perhaps because subconsciously they feel that the foundations of
Christian faith are u p for re-examination once the relation between the
church and the Jewish people is seriously considered. If challenging
questions are asked which touch essential elements of Christian faith,
the reaction is often o n e of defensiveness and a refusal to deal
earnestly with the questions involved.
A n interesting case is the reactions to the Statement of the Synod of
the Protestant Church of the Rhineland in the Federal Republic of
1
G e r m a n y . This statement, issued in January 1980, was the result of
m a n y years of reflection and meant a recognition by this church that
the Jewish people has remained the people called by G o d to fulfill its
God-given mission in the world. T h e statement was but o n e further
step o f the m a n y taken b y s o m e churches after the Holocaust to find a
n e w relationship to the Jewish people. However, shortly after the
publication of this statement members of the theological faculty of
2
B o n n University issued " c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , " in which they attacked it
with arguments aimed at the restoration of age-long theological
Dr. J. Schoneveld is general secretary of the International Council of Christians and Jews at
the Martin Buber House, Heppenheim, West Germany.
52
JEWISH "NO" AND CHRISTIAN "YES"
positions that denied the Jewish people any legitimate place in God's
design after the coming of Christ. T h e whole style of argumentation
signified a refusal to reconsider these theological positions, and a
tendency to a Christian thinking as if Auschwitz had not taken place.
In this regard the B o n n professors failed the theological criterion
which the Catholic theologian J. B . Metz had set forth: "not to engage
in a theology of any kind that remains untouched by Auschwitz or
could have remained untouched b y it." Metz gave his students the
Metz, the Catholic theologian, advised his students,

"Leave alone any theology which actually could have been
the same before or after Auschwitz."
advice " L e a v e alone any theology which actually could have b e e n the
3
same before or after A u s c h w i t z . " A very different reaction o n the
statement of the S y n o d of the Church of the Rhineland was given by a
G e r m a n psychologist, Hanna Wolff, in her book New WineOld Skins;
Christianity's Problem of Identity in the Light of Psychoanalysis."* Her
a n s w e r to the synod's statement consists in the glorification of
Marcion, the church leader of the second century of the Christian era
w h o tried to detach Jesus from Judaism and saw him as the
manifestation of a different G o d than the G o d w h o s e will was
revealed to Israel. According to Wolff, Christianity has until now
never really got out of the shadow of Judaism. That is its guilt, its
tragic and existential problem. To cut all ties with Judaism would, in
her opinion, be the proper consequence to b e drawn from the
guilt-laden history of the Christian relationship toward the Jewish
people, a relationship which has culminated in Auschwitz. S h e
k n o w s that something is very wrong in the traditional attitude of the
church to the Jews, and she quotes a remarkable statement by the
famous church historian Adolf v o n Harnack, w h o s e theology
displayed Marcionite tendencies. It was quoted b y the Jewish
theologian Pinchas Lapide: " S u c h injustice as perpetrated by the
Gentile churches towards Judaism is almost unheard of in world
history. T h e Gentile church denies it everything; takes its holy book
away from it, and while she herself is nothing else than a transformed
Judaism, she cuts off every connection with it: the daughter rejects the
3
mother after having plundered h e r . "
The mere thought that Christianity might b e a transformed Judaism
53
is horrifying for Wolff, a n d tendencies in contemporary Christian

theology to seek what J e w s and Christians m a y have in c o m m o n fill
her with anger. S h e writes a book in which the whole Hebrew Bible
and all Jewish elements in Christianity (or in any case the caricatures
she gives of Jewish elements, since she shows herself to be very
ill-informed about Judaism!) are thrown overboard. In this way she
h o p e s to solve the identity problems of Christianity. Since the J e w s ,
during the S e c o n d World War, were physically removed a n d
exterminated from G e r m a n y , she n o w wants a Christianity in
G e r m a n y "purified" from all Jewish traces. It is not surprising that the
Christianity she presents is a rather meager extract of s o m e sayings of
Jesus adapted to psychotherapeutic n e e d s of individuals in distress.
S h e has, however, rightly seen that Christianity had developed a
very complicated, ambivalent, a n d almost pathological relationship
towards the Jewish people. S h e is aware that, in the words of von
Harnack, Christianity has plundered h e r mother, Judaism, by
claiming to be the true Israel and b y denying the Jews the ability to
read their Scriptures validly and correctly. But her solution of simply
rejecting the m o t h e r is self-destructive a n d at least as pathological as
the traditional Christian relationship to the Jewish people, especially
in view of the post-Holocaust situation in Germany.
From b o t h these types of reactions to the statement of the S y n o d of
the Rhineland it b e c o m e s clear that the relationship to the Jewish
people is still a very sensitive matter to G e r m a n consciousness.
Christians in Europe are confronted with the empty place left in their
countries b y the disappearance of m a n y Jewish communities. In the
first decades after the S e c o n d World W a r , awareness of this absence
was suppressed b y the feverish reconstruction of the devastated cities
of Europe a n d the rebuilding of the e c o n o m y . N o w after forty years
the victims of the Holocaust are more hauntingly present than
immediately after the war, despite all the p r o n o u n c e m e n t s that the
time has c o m e to forget a n d to forgive. T h e statement of the Rhineland
S y n o d is a courageous attempt to c o m e to grips with the real questions
posed by the Holocaust to the c h u r c h e s . It is the result of serious and
engaged Christian rethinking in relatively small circles of people w h o
dared to expose themselves to painful self-examination.
T h e center of this m o v e m e n t has b e e n the working group of
Christians a n d J e w s at the G e r m a n Protestant Kirchentag. T h e
Kirchentag is a large gathering of Protestant Christians convening
once in two years and attracting, in recent years, several hundred
thousand participants, most of t h e m y o u n g laypeople. T h e y have
54
JEWISH "NO" A N D CHRISTIAN "YES"
b e e n a source of renewal of the church in Germany, although the

relationship with the official, largely bureaucratic church structure is
rather tense. O n e of the significant things in this working group was
that Christians with the help of a small n u m b e r of the Jews w h o had
remained in G e r m a n y , or settled here after the War, became engaged
in serious efforts to c o m e to grips with the terrible recent past in the
relations b e t w e e n Christians a n d Jews. Christians confronted
themselves with this past not in isolation, alone with their guilt, but
face-to-face with Jewish dialogue partners w h o helped t h e m to face
this past a n d thus to set foot o n the w a y to a n e w future. Christians
engaged in this process have experienced this as liberation and as
inspiration for n e w Christian thinking. O n the Catholic side in
G e r m a n y a similar process has taken place in the lay m o v e m e n t led by
the Central Committee of G e r m a n Catholics, which organizes the
so-called Katholikentag, an event similar to the Protestant Kirchentag.
As a result of this Christian-Jewish dialogue against the background of
a horrible past, creative theological thinking has taken place on the
Christian side, which took its point of departure in the reflection on
the relation b e t w e e n the church a n d the Jewish people but also
affected other areas of theology. It b e c a m e very clear that b y dealing
with Christian-Jewish relations o n e had to deal with the foundations
of the Christian faith.
Others received the opportunity to get acquainted with the research
on Jewish tradition and history in the State of Israel, where Jewish
scholars could examine the past of the Jewish people, especially those
crucial centuries of the S e c o n d T e m p l e period, at the end of which
Christianity emerged, with far less apologetics and defensiveness
than was the case in the Diaspora. Christians w h o had the chance to
study at the H e b r e w University of Jerusalem a n d other universities in
Israel became deeply impressed by this scholarship, which h a d a great
impact on their theological thinking.
I a m writing this essay as o n e of those Christians: for thirteen years,
from 1967 to 1980, I lived in Jerusalem as representative of the
Netherlands Reformed Church especially assigned for Christian-
J e w i s h relations. Since 1980, w h e n I was appointed General Secretary
of the International Council of Christians and J e w s which has its seat
in the former residence of Martin Buber in H e p p e n h e i m in West
G e r m a n y , I have come in close contact with the before-mentioned
circles in G e r m a n y which with the help o f J e w i s h friends engaged in
serious re-examination of their Christian thinking. In this essay I put
into words m y o w n Christian thinking as it has b e e n influenced by
55
these experiences in Jerusalem and Germany. It is an individual

crystallization of insights which I received in those years.
Is Christianity in essence anti-Jewish, as maintained by the N e w
Testament scholar, Gerhard Kittel, editor of the Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament? Kittel, w h o was a m e m b e r of Hitler's Nazi party,
wrote that the N e w T e s t a m e n t was the " m o s t anti-Jewish book in the
6
w h o l e w o r l d . " From a diametrically opposite point of view, that of a
sharp critic o f the long anti-Jewish history of the church, the American
theologian R o s e m a r y Ruether seems to share this thesis in writing
that anti-Judaism is the left hand of christology. If this is so, can one,
after the Holocaust, remain a Christian in good conscience? A n d
w h e n o n e sees the age-long Christian anti-Judaism against the
background of the other records of oppression and persecution in
Christian hstory, e.g., of heretics, of w o m e n , o f colonized nations,
and of people of different skin color, the question of the intrinsic
moral quality of Christian thinking poses itself: Is Christian thinking
in its very essence authoritarian, absolutistic, and exclusive? A n d to
the extent that this is so, can that have to do with the origin of
Christianity as a messianic m o v e m e n t that announced that the end of
history had c o m e and claimed to bring the ultimate solution to the
problems inherent in the h u m a n condition? A n East G e r m a n writer of
Jewish descent, Stefan H e y m , said in his opening address to the 1982
annual convention of the International Council of Christians and J e w s
in Berlin:
It seems that whenever the proponents of a doctrine promising

salvation fail to deliver the goods within a reasonable space of time,
they tend to create a rigid hierarchy and impose on their followers
the discipline of rules and dogma in order to keep them in line; and
woe to those who dare deviate from the ordained philosophy and its
7
officially approved commentaries.
H e started his address with the words: " I n the beginning there was
this false h o p e , " referring to the early Christians awaiting Jesus' fina}
return in their lifetime, expecting the kingdom of Christ to be just
around the corner.
Is Kittel after all right in saying that there are n o more irreconcilable
opponents in the world than real Judaism and real Christianity? If I
honestly face the fact that the Jewish people and Judaism consciously
decided not to accept Jesus as the o n e the church confessed him to b e ,
can I then as a Christian, i.e., from the depth of m y faith-commitment
56
to J e s u s Christ, accept and affirm the Jewish people as still called by

G o d to fulfill its God-given mission a n d Judaism as a valid response to
this calling? T h e G e r m a n theologian Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt
has concisely formulated the problem as follows: " W e will have
Christian anti-Judaism only then behind us, w h e n theologically w e
will have succeeded in making positive sense of the Jewish 'No' to
8
Jesus."
But let us first see, h o w w e can say " y e s " to the Jewish people o n the
basis of our belief in Jesus Christ. O n l y then can w e deal with the
J e w i s h " n o " to Jesus.
C o m m o n to Judaism a n d Christianity is the belief that the h u m a n
person lives b y the W o r d of G o d . But as w e consider h o w G o d speaks
to us, J e w s and Christians do not s e e m to have anything in c o m m o n
a n y m o r e . For J e w s , the W o r d of G o d par excellence is the Torah given
to Israel on M o u n t Sinai in the double form o f the written Torah and
the Torah orally transmitted in tradition. According to the Midrash,
the voice of G o d on Sinai was e c h o e d in seven voices, a n d the seven
voices changed into seventy languages, so that all nations could hear
the W o r d of G o d . Therefore everybody can live b y the W o r d of God.
For Christians, the W o r d of G o d par excellence is Jesus Christ, the
W o r d of G o d that b e c a m e flesh, a h u m a n person, in Jesus Christ.
G o d ' s Spirit was poured out on all flesh, according to the Pentecost
story in the Acts of the Apostles, so that each in his o w n language
heard about the mighty works of G o d . Everybody, therefore, can live
b y the W o r d of G o d . T h e W o r d of G o d , w h e t h e r understood in a
Jewish or a Christian s e n s e , has universal meaning: J e w s say it is the
Torah; Christians say it is J e s u s Christ. This disagreement is even
exacerbated by the traditional Christian claim that Jesus is the true
W o r d of God, superseding a n d replacing the Torah. This claim has
made possible " t h e greatest injustice in world history" about which
v o n Harnack spoke in the above quotation.
T h e preservation of "Judaism despite Christianity" which is
inexplicable from a traditional Christian standpoint must be a "finger
of G o d " for us, forcing us to rethink our traditional views. "Judaism
despite Christianity" c o m e s from the title of the English translation of
the profound correspondence b e t w e e n the Christian E u g e n Rosen-
stock and the J e w Franz Rosenzweig written at the front during the
First World War. Let us therefore start again with what is c o m m o n to
J e w s and Christians despite everything: the W o r d of God. W h a t does
G o d say to us? O n e of the first attempts to express this in a short,
concise statement is made in Micah 6:8: " H e has told you, O
57
man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you but to do
9
justice and to love kindness and to be humble in going with your G o d ? "
After God had created man and w o m a n in God's image as the
governors of all creatures, God attached the phrase "very good" to the
finished work. In this verse of Micah, good is doing justice, loving
kindness, and being humble in going with G o d . In a h u m a n community
where these requirements are fulfilled, God's image becomes visible.
That is what God tells humanity through the Word of God. W h e n we
look at Jewish tradition this is in a nutshell what the Torah spells out in
great detail. T h e purpose of the Torah is to create such a community,
and its final goal is that the whole of humanity will live according to
these requirements of God, which in the Micah verse are addressed to
" A d a m , " humanity. T h e n it will b e visible that " A d a m , " the whole of
humanity, has b e e n created in the image of God.
Jesus was "Torah in the flesh/' a man who embodied

Torah, all of whose actions were Torah.
As a Christian I confess " t h e W o r d b e c a m e flesh" (John 1:14). I

believe that in this confession the " W o r d " should be understood in
the sense of " T o r a h " a n d that thus " t h e W o r d b e c a m e flesh" should
be understood as: " t h e Torah took o n flesh a n d b l o o d . " This means:
Jesus was so to speak, " T o r a h in the flesh," a man w h o embodied
Torah, all of w h o s e actions were Torah. In him b e c a m e transparent
the purpose of the Torah to bring about a kind of h u m a n existence in
w h i c h the image o f G o d is visible.
All this is confirmed and strengthened as w e look at the picture
drawn of J e s u s in the Synoptic Gospels. W h e n w e disregard for a
m o m e n t such polemical passages as those regarding the scribes a n d
Pharisees which reflect the tensions b e t w e e n the early Christian
community a n d the Pharisee m o v e m e n t about forty years after Jesus'
death, and look at what J e s u s actually said a n d did, then a genuinely
J e w i s h picture e m e r g e s . T h e S e r m o n o n the M o u n t strongly
resembles rabbinic teachings, a n d J e s u s ' parables and sayings find
remarkable parallels in rabbinic literature. He lived a Jewish life,
marked b y the sign of the covenant, the circumcision, from the eighth
day of his life. H e w e n t to the synagogue a n d prayed Jewish prayers
that even today are prayed in the synagogues all over the world. His
life and behavior were articulated b y the c o m m a n d m e n t s given to
58
M o s e s o n Sinai; h e contributed his share to interpreting the Torah, as

the Pharisees did, to let it pervade and influence all areas of life in a
time w h e n m a n y rules of behavior were not yet fixed, but were still a
matter of debate and even controversy. H e shared Jewish h o p e s and
expectations of redemption although h e m a y have rejected certain
political expressions of these expectations, as did other Jews, notably
a m o n g the Pharisees. Jewish and non-Jewish scholars confirm that
J e s u s ' teachings stood very near to Pharisee teachings. In all this,
Jesus put his o w n e m p h a s e s as was done by other great teachers. He
w a s especially concerned about those J e w s w h o lived o n the margins
of Jewish society and were looked at askance by the majority: tax
collectors, prostitutes, and mentally and contagiously ill people. He
wanted to bring these lost sons and daughters of Abraham back to the
fold of the community of the covenant (see Luke 15:1-32; 19:1-10).
W h e n I confess that " t h e Word became flesh" I affirm that in this
Jewish life lived according to the Torah, in which the image of God
b e c a m e visible, G o d speaks to m e . There is n o doubt that such a life
according to the Torah has also been lived b y others than Jesus, Jews
a n d non-Jews, before and after him. W h a t m a k e s the difference is the
Resurrection. But here, too, w e are close to Pharisee conceptions.
Since the time of the Maccabees the big religious question for many
J e w s was h o w one could reconcile the justice of G o d with the fact that
those w h o were faithful to the Torah were murdered and martyred.
T h e way of life according to the Torah seems to c o m e to a dead end: as
soon as the image of G o d b e c o m e s visible in a h u m a n being or a
h u m a n community, it is destroyed b y the powers of evil. It is in
response to these vexing questions that the belief in the resurrection of
those w h o died as martyrs sanctifying the n a m e of G o d emerged in
Judaism and b e c a m e strong especially in Pharisee circles. In the
resurrection the martyrs were vindicated or justified b y G o d in the
face of the powers of evil.
Jesus, a Jew w h o lived according to the Torah, in w h o m the image of
G o d was visible, also died as a martyr. A s so m a n y other J e w s , before
and after him, h e died a typically Jewish death, a martyr's death, or,
with a profound Jewish expression, a death for the sanctification of
God's n a m e , on a R o m a n cross. At this point the crucial event takes
place which is constituent for the Christian faith: the Resurrection of
Jesus from the dead. Through this event J e s u s ' disciples find hard
evidence that the image of G o d cannot be destroyed: " W h y seek ye the
living a m o n g the d e a d ? " T h e Resurrection m e a n s that the path of the
Torah does not c o m e to a dead end but is the way of life. It m e a n s that
59
the W o r d of G o d which tells us what is good: to do justice, to love

kindness a n d to b e humble in going with our G o d , is trustworthy,
discloses the future, a n d is a source o f h o p e . W h e n I believe in Jesus as
the Resurrected, I accept this W o r d of G o d . I base myself on the basic
assumption and take the stubborn stance, that the image of G o d
cannot be destroyednot in any fellow h u m a n being (therefore I a m
required to c o m e to the defense of those w h o s e h u m a n dignity is
denied and in w h o m the image of G o d is violated), nor in myself
(therefore I don't sink into despair, w h e n I find the forces of evil a n d
sin working in myself). T h e preciousness a n d inviolability of the
image of G o d in m y fellow h u m a n beings and in myself are
proclaimed in the Resurrection of Jesus.
T h e Resurrection means the vindication of Jesus as a Jew, as a person
w h o was faithful to the Torah, as a martyr w h o participated in Jewish
martyrdom for the sanctification of God's name. What else can this
mean than the validation of the Torah and vindication of the Jewish
people as God's beloved people? T h e Resurrection of Jesus confirms
God's promises as well as God's commandments to the Jewish people.
Nowhere does the N e w Testament say that Jews by believing in Jesus
Christ would cease to observe the commandments. In the past
Christians have always connected the Jews with the death of Christ:
they were called Christ-killers, or the charge of deicide was thrown at
them. I see the Jewish people in the light of the Resurrection. I see their
survival throughout the centuries in the light of what the Resurrection
means: the affirmation of the Torah, of the people of Israel, and of
Jewish existence. Therefore Christian affirmation of the Jewish people
ought to belong to the very center of the Christian faith. And if in the
present the Jewish people gets a n e w chance to survive and revive,
particularly through the existence of the State of Israel, I see this in the
light of the Resurrection. Needless to say this does not mean blanket
approval of what the State of Israel does.
But if it is so good, w h y then is it so bad? H o w are the bitter
controversy a n d hate b e t w e e n J e w s a n d Christians to be explained? It
s e e m s that the crucial point of controversy w a s the Resurrection of
Jesus as the decisive, eschatological act o f G o d , i.e., as the beginning
of the great revolution that would "scatter the proud in the
imagination o f their hearts, put d o w n the mighty from their thrones,
exalt those of low degree, fill the h u n g r y with good things and send
the rich e m p t y a w a y " (Luke 1:52 ff.) and would establish the n e w
order of the kingdom of G o d governed by justice, peace, and joy
(Rom. 14:7).The followers of J e s u s were deeply convinced that the
60
messianic age had arrived and that they were a community standing
at the consummation of history and that the kingdom of God was just
around the corner. A part of the early Christian community believed
that in the light of the approaching divine revolution n e w rules were
required with regard to the Gentiles. N o w in order for the Gentiles to
join the covenant of God with Israel and thus enter the world to come
(as a rabbinic saying has it: the whole of Israel has a share in the world
to come) and b e saved from the Last Judgment, it was n o longer
necessary to join the covenant of Sinai involving circumcision and the
observance of the " 6 1 3 c o m m a n d m e n t s " of the Torah, but they could
enter the covenant with the G o d of Israel through incorporation into
the "body of Christ" and in this way get a share in the world to come.
This understanding of the Resurrection as the eschatological act of
God bringing about the n e w order of justice, peace, and j o y led the
disciples of J e s u s to call him " m e s s i a h . " T h e majority of the Jewish
community, however, did not perceive that what had happened to
Jesus was the decisive turning point in history and did not share the
conclusions drawn from it by the early Christian community, nor
were they convinced that Jesus was the messiah, since in n o way was
the n e w order coming about.
Now after 1950 years the plain fact is that the divine revolution on
which the early Christian community counted has not materialized.
The church had to abandon the thought that it stood at the end of
history. It continued to live within history, but by doing so it claimed
to continue the history of Israel, to replace the Jewish people as God's
people and to be the " t r u e " or the " n e w " Israel. Jesus, n o w
designated with the n a m e " m e s s i a h , " remained the central figure of
this community, but n o longer as the eschatological figure w h o fulfills
the Torah, but as the normative figure w h o replaces the Torah, so that
the Torah was n o longer the norm, but Jesus Christ became the norm
of thought and action. Although the church maintains that Jesus has
fulfilled the Torah, in reality the Torah remains unfulfilled, because
the n e w world order of doing justice, loving kindness, and being
humble in going with G o d has not yet c o m e to humanity.
At this point we meet the Jewish " n o " to the claims made by the
church for Jesus. As Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt has pointed out,
this Jewish " n o " is an expression of Jewish faithfulness to the Torah,
to its God-given calling. This is the dignity of the Jewish " n o " to Jesus.
61
J e w s k n o w that as long as the world is not redeemed, and the image of

G o d has not yet b e c o m e visible in the w h o l e of humanity, they have to
remain faithful to the Torah. T h u s is the Jewish people a constant
reminder to the church that w e still live in an u n r e d e e m e d world. This
m e a n s that their enmity toward the gospel is an enmity for our sake,
to speak with Paul (Rom. 11:28).
Jews know that as long as the world is not redeemed, and

the image of God has not yet become visible in the whole of
humanity, they have to remain faithful to the Torah.
T h e church is often inclined to evaluate the significance of cross and

Resurrection so highly that it falls into the temptation of a "realized
eschatology." T h e light which it has seen in J e s u s Christ is so shining
that it often blinds its eyes for the darkness and the evil that still exist
in the world. T h e G e r m a n N e w T e s t a m e n t scholar, Peter von der
10
O s t e n - S a c k e n has drawn our attention to a process that already
started in the N e w Testament: Since the consummation of history did
not take place within the expected span of time of, at the most, o n e
generation, the conclusion drawn by the early Christian community
was not that the struggle of the risen J e s u s against the powers of evil
was much m o r e laborious a n d tiring than originally expected. Instead,
the response was often to ascribe to Jesus in heaven more and more
power and might, a n d to make h i m m o r e and more equal to God and
to minimize the subordination of Christ to G o d at the end of time (see
I Cor. 15:28). This has led to a triumphalistic attitude in the church
ignoring the struggle to b e waged for justice a n d peace on earth. It has
also led to a tendency to look away from the earth and expect salvation
in heavenly, transcendental spheres. T h e claim to possess the
invisible salvation led further to authoritarian a n d intolerant attitudes
to those (e.g., the Jews) w h o were not prepared to accept this claim.
T h e " n o " of the J e w s to the elevated claims made b y the church for
Jesus is the reverse of their faithfulness to the Torah, their h o p e for the
world's redemption. This " n o " that Paul could not but describe as " a
hardening that has c o m e u p o n part of Israel" (Rom. 11:25), is n o w ,
after nearly twenty centuries, to b e valued positively by Christians as
the hard shell to preserve the love for the Torah in a world that is still
awaiting redemption.
Let us b e honest and recognize that both Israel and the church are
62
still far away from the expected redemption. Instead of standing as the
eschatological community at the end of history, the church has
entered history as a community parallel and often in rivalry and
conflict with the Jewish people. T h e net result of the messianic
outburst that took place in the year 33 within the Jewish community,
as a response to the events around Jesus of Nazareth, has been that a
new access, a n e w gate, in particular for non-Jews, has b e e n opened to
the w a y of the Lord which began with Abraham (Gen. 18:19) and will
end in the kingdom of G o d . It is not true that the church has replaced
Israel or has taken over its vocation. Both Israel and the church await
the fulfillment of the Torah, w h e n the image of God will be visible in
the whole of humanity. T h e J e w s await this final Day incorporated in
the people of Israel, the Christians incorporated in the body o f Christ.
And both are judged by the same G o d to w h o m they have to answer,
if they have b e e n faithful to their particular vocation. T h e J e w s have
expressed their faithfulness in a " n o " to Jesus as his church tried to
take the Torah away from them. Christians may express their
faithfulness in their " y e s " to Jesus w h o embodied the Torah, and
therefore also in a " y e s " to his brothers and sisters, the Jewish people.
NOTES
1. Zur Erneuerung des Verhaltnisses von Christen und Juden, Handreichung der Evangelischen
Kirche in Rheinland, Nr. 39 (Mulheim, 1980), pp. 8-28; also in B. Klappert, H. Stark, eds.,
Umkehr und Erneuerung; Erlauterungen zum Synodalbeshluss der Rheinischen Landessynode 1980
"Zur Erneuerung des Verhaltnisses von Christen und Juden" (Neukirchen-Vluyn; Neukirchener
Verlag, 1980), pp. 263-81.
2. "ErwSgungen zur kirchlichen Handreichung zur Erneuerung des Verhaltnisses von
Christen und Juden" in Dokumentation des Evangelischen Pressedienstes (Frankfurt am Main,
Sept. 29, 1980).
3. In G. B. Ginzel, ed., Auschwitz als Herausforderung fur Juden und Christen (Heidelberg:
Verlag Lambert Schneider, 1980), p. 176.
4. Hanna Wolff, Neuer Wein-Alte Schlauche; das Identita'tsproblem des Christentums im Lichte
der Tiefenpsychologie (Stuttgart: Radius Verlag, 1981).
5. Adolf von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei
Jahrhunderten (Leipzig, 1902), p. 50 (quotation translated by this author).
6. Gerhard Kittel, Die Judenfrage, 2nd ed., 1933, p. 61 (quoted in J. S. Vos, 'Politiek en
Exegese; Gerhard Kittelsbeeld vanhet jodendom,' in Verkenningen Bezinning, 17e Jaargang,
no. 2, September, 1983, p. 13).
7. Stefan Heym, 'Keynote Address to Christians and J e w s / in From the Martin Buber
House, issue no. 2, December, 1982, p. 8.
8. Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt, "Feinde um unsretwillen; 'Das judische Nein und die
christlicheTheologie," in Peter von der Osten-Sacken, ed. Treue zur Thora, Beitr&ge zur Mitte
des christlich-judischen Gesprachs; Festschrift fur Gunther Harder zum 75. Geburtstag, 2nd ed.
(Berlin: Institut Kirche und Judentum, 1979), p. 174; 1st ed. 1977. (Quotation translated by
this author.)
9. This author's translation from the Hebrew.
10. Peter von der Osten-Sacken, Grundzuge einer Theologie im christliche-judischen Gesprach
(Munchen: Kaiser Verlag, 1982), pp. 139, 182.
63
HESCHEL'S SIGNIFICANCE
FOR JEWISH-CHRISTIAN RELATIONS
EVA FLEISCHNER
A b r a h a m J o s h u a H e s c h e l did his b e s t to h e l p Christians

understand they could overcome their failure and b e c o m e
truly h u m a n .
W e all have our stories to tell about Abraham Joshua Heschel
allow me to tell one also, a story I received from a friend:
The Jesuit Daniel Kilfoyle was one of the founders of Clergy and Laity
Concerned about Vietnam. After the first few meetings he was
forbidden by his superiors to remain with the group. Kilfoyle decided to
go to one more meeting, so that he could tell his friends in person why
he would not be able to stay with them. Heschel sat across the table from
him as he spoke. W h e n he had finished, Heschel got up, came around
to where Daniel was sitting, and embraced him saying: " Y o u are my
1
brother!" In some mysterious way Abraham Heschel, the Jew,
respected the Jesuit's decision to obey and understood his pain.
What was it about Heschel that gave him this capacity for
understanding a tradition and a discipline that wereat least in this
casequite alien to his o w n , a discipline which, by the 1960s, even
some Catholics had difficulty in understanding and accepting? H o w
was it that, less than three m o n t h s after his death, America magazine
published an entire issue dedicated to Heschel, in which Protestant
and Catholic scholars joined with Jewish scholars in paying tribute to
Heschel? J o h n Bennett, at the time president of Union Theological
Seminary where Heschel had b e e n a visiting professor, wrote in that
issue that " A b r a h a m Heschel belonged to the whole American
Eva Fleischner is professor of religion at Montclair State College in New Jersey and a
member of the Bishops' Secretariat for Catholic-Jewish Relations. She is the author of Views
of Judaism in German Christian Theology since 1945 (Scarecrow, 1975) and of a Holocaust
bibliography and a number of articles. She also edited Auschwitz: Beginning of a New Era?
(KTAV, 1977).
This essay was originally delivered at a Heschel Symposium at the College of St. Benedict,
St. Joseph, Minn., in 1983. It has been shortened for publication here, but the full version
will appear in a volume to be published by McMillan.
64
religious community. I k n o w of no other person of w h o m this was so

true. . . . He s e e m e d equally at h o m e with Protestants and Catho
2
l i c s , " W e have all heard the tributes paid him by the Christian
theologians at this symposium. Jewish scholars also bear witness to
Heschel's impact o n Christians. Samuel Dresner wrote of Heschel's
3
"fraternity with the Christian c o m m u n i t y . " A n d in a paper given at
the Jewish Theological Seminary, Rabbi Marc T a n e n b a u m said that
" A m e r i c a n s of all religions and races discovered in Heschel a rare
4
religious genius o f penetrating insight a n d c o m p a s s i o n . "
H o w do w e explain this extraordinary p h e n o m e n o n : a Jewish
religious thinker, utterly and profoundly Jewish, w h o touched and
affected not just the lives, but the thought of Christian theologians? I
h o p e to throw s o m e light on this question b y examining the role that
Heschel played in bringing J e w s a n d Christians closer to each other. I
shall approach m y subject in three parts:
First, I shall examine those writings of Heschel in which h e speaks
explicitly of the relationship b e t w e e n Judaism a n d Christianity. To
this group belong not only passages that reveal Heschel's remarkable
understanding of a n d sympathy for Christianity, but also his
trenchant and honestat times painfully honestarticulation of
Christian failure, Christian sin vis-^-vis Judaism in the course of
history, such as the attempts at forced conversion, the "Teaching of
C o n t e m p t , " and Christianity's role in the Holocaust.
T h e second section will deal with Heschel's influence on the Second
Vatican Council. It is closely related to the first, but I examine it
separately because of the historical importance o f Vatican II for the
religious history of the twentieth century in general, and for
Christianity's relationship to Judaism in particular.
In the third and last part I shall briefly look at Heschel's work more
broadly, to see h o w A b r a h a m Joshua Heschel the J e w , Heschel the
Hasid, has influenced Christianity today. While the theme of this
paperJewish-Christian reconciliationwill be implicit rather than
explicit here, this area m a y well prove to be Heschel's most enduring
a n d profound impact on Christianity. It can perhaps b e seen as the
source a n d wellspring o f the first two parts o f m y paper.
O n e c o m m o n thread runs through all three sections: the
great-heartedness, the generous, deeply caring figure of Abraham
Heschel. His personal impact o n Christians w h e t h e r o n renowned
theologians, popes and cardinals, or on large lay audiences, such as
the gathering at the 1969 Milwaukee Liturgical Conferencewas as
immediate and profound as was the impact of his writings, O r to put it
65
in a Jewish way: word and deed were always at one in the life of this
holy man.
THE RELATIONSHIP OF JEWS AND

CHRISTIANS TODAY AND IN HISTORY
Heschel w a s profoundly optimistic about Jewish-Christian rela

tions. In a 1966 article h e spoke of the n e w atmosphere of mutual
esteem that had c o m e about, and rejoiced in the fact that he n o w had
5
Protestant a n d Catholic students in his c l a s s e s . It was an important
time for him: he had recently b e c o m e visiting professor at Union
THeological Seminary, and his hard work during Vatican II had borne
fruit. He saw the ecumenical m o v e m e n t as a n e w horizon of hitherto
unimagined possibilities. But his optimism was not a facile one. Just as
during Vatican II it h a d taken m u c h faith a n d perseverance for him to
continue to believe that an ancient a n d often sordid history could b e
turned around, so too there remained m o m e n t s of discouragement.
Jacob T e s h i m a , a student of his at Jewish Theological Seminary, recalls
going for a walk with Heschel right after the Munich massacre.
Heschel spoke with anguish: " O h , h o w I pray for the peace of
Jerusalem. But look at the cool indifference of the world's Christians!
6
. . . " He k n e w times of discouragement, probably m a n y more than
w e are aware of. But h e did not allow t h e m to overcome his hope or to
paralyze his efforts to bring J e w s a n d Christians closer to each other.
Heschel's theological impact on Christians is all the more striking
because he believed that certain limits must b e respected in the
dialogue. T h u s h e held that J e w s a n d Christians should not discuss
7
the figure of C h r i s t . Christology was out of b o u n d s because Heschel
believed that each religion is entitled to the privacy of its holy of
holies; J u d a i s m too " m u s t always be mindful of the mystery of
8
aloneness a n d uniqueness of its o w n b e i n g . " W h a t then was the
ground for Heschel o n which J e w s and Christians could meet face to
face and engage each other in meaningful conversation?
J e w s a n d Christians have much in c o m m o n but are also separated.
T h e differences must b e explored, along with the vast heritage which
they share. C o m m o n ground a n d separation are both necessary and
should be affirmed. For each c o m m u n i t y must retain its identity,
while respecting a n d understanding the other. This m e a n s that w e
must understand what w e have in c o m m o n , as well as what divides
us. T o slight either would make our conversation meaningless. T h e
66
question for Heschel was always: H o w can w e talk with each other out
of our specific and partly different commitment of J e w s and
Christians? Out of commitment, not without commitment.
The question for Heschel was always: How can we talk

with each other out of our specific and partly different
commitment of Jews and Christians? Out of commitment,
not without commitment.
In every God-human relationshipand this relationship w a s at the

heart of all that Heschel wrote and didthere are four dimensions:
creed or teaching; faith or the assent of the heart; law or deed, which
concretizes the first two; and the context in which faith is lived in
9
history, the c o m m u n i t y .
W e are united in the dimension of the deed b y our c o m m o n concern
for safeguarding and enhancing the divine image in our fellow h u m a n
beings, by building a world where justice and freedom can prevail.
T h e r e is commonality also in the realm o f faith (which for Heschel is
always distinct from creed): our awareness of " t h e tragic insufficiency
of h u m a n faith," even at its best, our anguish and pain in falling so far
short of the divine c o m m a n d , in being callous and hardhearted in
response to G o d ' s invitation. All this unites us.
A n d what divides us? Creed, dogma: " T h e r e is a deep chasm
b e t w e e n Christians and J e w s concerning . . . the divinity and the
10
Messiahship of J e s u s . " Yet the c h a s m need not b e a source of
hostility. For, " t o turn a disagreement about the identity of this
'Anointed' into an act of apostasy from G o d Himself seems to m e
11
neither logical nor c h a r i t a b l e . " T h e c h a s m remains, but w e can
extend our h a n d s to each other across it provided w e are willing to
recognize that doctrine, all doctrine, can only point the way: it can
never hold fast the mystery of G o d . T h e goal of our journey is not
doctrine but faith; along the way doctrines can serve as signposts, but
"the righteous lives by . . . faith, not b y . . . creed. A n d faith . . .
involves profound awareness of the inadequacy of words, concepts,
deeds. Unless w e realize that dogmas are tentative rather than final
12
. . . w e are guilty o f intellectual i d o l a t r y . "
T h e challenge for Heschel was not h o w to relate to a religious
institution different from his o w n , but rather, to h u m a n beings w h o
worship God in another way, " w h o worship G o d as followers of
67
13
J e s u s , " Can J e w s accept this different way as valid? Can they not just
tolerate it, but revere it as holy?
Heschel's a n s w e r is an unequivocal yes (we shall see later that h e
asks no less of Christians). This yes is based on two convictions
both, I believe, revolutionary not only fifteen years ago but still today.
The first, strongly held and repeatedly affirmed, is Heschel's belief in
religious pluralism; not as an evil necessity of which we must
grudgingly make the best, but as desire, even delight, of God. "God's
voice speaks in many languages, communicating itself in a diversity of
14
intuitions." W h y should it not be God's will in this earthly eon that
there be a diversity of religions, a variety of paths to God? Heschel finds
no evidence in history that a single religion for the citizens even of o n e
country is a blessing. Rather, the task o f preparing the kingdom of God
seems to him to require a diversity of talents, a variety of rituals,
13
"soul-searching as well a s . . . loyal opposition." In his December 10,
1972, interview with Carl Stern, which was to be his last gift to us, h e
asked Stern if he would really want all the paintings in the Metropolitan
to be alike; or, would the world be a more fascinating place if all h u m a n
faces were the same? In this eon, at least, diversity of religion seems to
him to be the will of God, with the prospect of all peoples embracing one
16
form of worship reserved for the world to c o m e . It is not diversity of
belief that is responsible for today's crisis; w e stand o n the edge of the
abyss "not because w e intensely disagree, but because w e feebly agree.
17
Faith, not indifference, is the condition for interfaith."
A second conviction underlies Heschel's belief that respect of each
other's differences is both necessary and good: his insistence that
religion and G o d are not identical. Religion is only a m e a n s , not the
e n d . It b e c o m e s idolatrous w h e n regarded as an end in itself. T h e
majesty of G o d transcends the dignity of religion. There is only one
absolute loyalty in w h i c h all our loyalties have their root, and to which
18
they are subservient, loyalty to G o d , "the loyalty of all m y l o y a l t i e s . "
God alone is absolute. Everything else, w h e n it b e c o m e s its own end,
runs the risk o f being idolatrous. Therefore religion stands under
19
constant j u d g m e n t and in n e e d o f repentance and self-examination.
T h e s e words, written by Heschel with reference to Vatican II and the
church's n e e d always again to reform itself, had a wider application
for him to all religions, including his o w n .
The relationship b e t w e e n J e w s and Christians which is forged out
of our c o m m o n ground and differences is today threatened by a
c o m m o n crisis. W e live in a time w h e n all that w e hold most dear is in
danger of being lost: moral sensitivity, justice, peace, our whole
68
biblical heritage, the very survival of G o d ' s presence in the world.

Because the crisis is universal, J e w s and Christians must work
together to save the world from destruction, to preserve those values
that make life h u m a n and worth living. W e can h o p e to succeed only
through a joint effort; w e need each other, because the task is too
overwhelming for each of us alone. Are w e ready to face the
challenge? This is h o w Heschel describes our c o m m o n task: " T h e
supreme issue is today not the halakah for the J e w or the Church for the
Christian. . ,; the supreme issue is w h e t h e r w e are alive or dead to the
challenge and the expectation o f the living G o d . T h e crisis engulfs all
of us. T h e misery and fear of alienation from G o d make J e w and
20
Christian cry t o g e t h e r . " W e really have n o choice. Either w e work
together to k e e p G o d alive in the world, or w e will both be engulfed by
nihilism, which Heschel sees as a worldwide counterforce to the
ecumenical m o v e m e n t . Because w e confront the same dangers and
terrors, and stand together on the brink, "parochialism has become
untenable . . . n o religion is an island. W e are all involved with one
another, . . . Today religious isolationism is a m y t h . "
The current need for Jews and Christians to work together is,
however, more than a strategic necessity for Heschel; it is rooted in
history. W e are linked historically, and the destiny of one impinges on
the destiny o f the other. It has always been so. Even in the Middle Ages,
Jews lived in only relative isolation and acknowledged that Christian
ity's spiritual impact o n the world was important also to them. " I f the
non-Jews of a certain town are moral, the Jews born there will be moral
as well." Heschel quotes Rabbi Joseph Yaabez, one of the victims of the
Inquisition, who blessed God for the faith of Christians, without which
" w e might ourselves become infirm in our faith."
And yet, despite such moments of insight and recognition, our
history is full of prejudice and bigotry. "This is the agony of history:
bigotry, the failure to respect each other's commitment, each other? s
21
faith." H o w can w e be cured of our bigotry? H o w can we learn to
rejoice in one another's triumphs rather than each other's defeats? The
answer for Heschel lies in the awareness of our common humanity,
which for him is never mere humanity. Meeting another h u m a n being
offers m e an opportunity to encounter the divine presence here on
earth. In the other's presence I stand on holy ground. W h y should this
holiness disappear if the other holds religious beliefs that differ from
mine? "Does God cease to stand before m e ? Does the difference in
22
commitment destroy the kinship of being h u m a n ? "
Heschel again looks to his own tradition for an answer. " T h e pious
69
of all nations have a share in the world to c o m e and are promised

23
eternal l i f e . " J e w s must therefore respect the faith of Christians.
T h e y must do more. Following the tradition of Maimonides, Jehuda
Halevi, and Jacob E m d e n , they must acknowledge Christianity's
24
positive role in the divine plan of r e d e m p t i o n . Because of Israel's
mysterious election ("in you shall all the tribes o f the earth be b l e s s e d "
[Gen. 12:3] ) , Judaism has a vital stake in the spiritual life of other
peoples, particularly Christians, through w h o m the message of the
living God has spread to the ends o f the earth. Unlike s o m e Jewish
thinkers w h o , while acknowledging Christianity's debt to Judaism,
see the relationship as a one-way street, Heschel believes that the
mother cannot ignore her children.
Heschel d e m a n d s n o less of Christians, however, than h e demands
of himself and his fellow Jews: genuine acceptance of and respect for
Judaism. This implies several " p r e c e p t s , " which Heschel spells out
quite clearly. I believe h e felt the freedom to do so because they
concern the history of Christianity, rather than its central affirmation
of faith in Christ.
All attempts to convert Jews must be abandoned, for they

are a call to Jews to abandon their people's tradition.
T h e first " p r e c e p t " is n o more mission to the Jews. All attempts to

convert J e w s must b e abandoned, for they are a call to J e w s to betray
their people's tradition, and proof o f the failure to accept Judaism as a
way of truth, a w a y to G o d , valid in its o w n right.
Renouncing mission to the J e w s requires a major change in the
church's attitude. " F o r nineteen h u n d r e d years the Church defined
her relation to the J e w s in o n e word: Mission. W h a t w e witness n o w is
the beginning of a change in that relation, a transition from mission to
dialogue.. . . W e must insist that giving u p the idea o f mission to the
Jews be accepted as a precondition for entering dialogue." T h e
problem, however, is that m a n y Christians are still not sufficiently
sensitive to this issue, and do not understand that " w e are J e w s as w e
2 5
are m e n . "
Heschel recalls his conversation with Gustav Weigel the night
before Weigel's death. T h e y talked in Heschel's study at Jewish
Theological Seminary.
70
We opened our hearts to one another in prayer and contrition and

spoke of our own deficiencies, failures, hopes. At one moment I
posed the question: Is it really the will of God that there be no more
Judaism in the world? Would it really be the triumph of God if the
scrolls of the Torah would no more be taken out of the Ark and the
Torah no more be read in the Synagogue, our ancient Hebrew
prayers in which Jesus himself worshipped no more recited, the
Passover Seder no more celebrated in our lives, the Law of Moses no
more observed in our homes? Would it really be ad tnajorem Dei
26
gloriam to have a world without J e w s ?
As I reflected on this passage some time ago I began to w o n d e r what

Weigel had said in reply. Heschel does not tell us. I thought that
perhaps Mrs. Heschel would know, so I went to see her. She
r e m e m b e r e d Heschel coming h o m e late that night very m o v e d by his
conversation with Weigel, but did not recall his speaking of the
Jesuit's response. So the two o f us sat there wondering and talking,
and soon we were j o i n e d by S u s a n n a h Heschel and a friend, w h o
were visiting that Sunday. W e read the w h o l e passage aloud, slowly.
A n d suddenly the a n s w e r emerged, quite clearly. " W e opened our
hearts to o n e another in prayer and contrition and spoke of our own
deficiencies, failures, h o p e s . " That was h o w their discussion began:
in prayer and contrition. H o w could Fr. Weigel's response to what
followed have b e e n anything but a profound affirmation of Judaism as
Judaism? T h e four of us, as w e sat in the Heschels' living room that
sunny Sunday afternoon, felt in agreement, reassured, and at peace.
" W o u l d it really be to the greater glory of God to have a world
without J e w s ? " W h e n presented in such terms, it is difficult to
imagine even the most fundamentalist of Christians answering, yes!
But alas, we do not have enough Heschels in the worldmen, and
w o m e n , w h o s e love of their G o d and people and tradition is so
radiant that it is quite obviously sacred, so that it becomes
inconceivable to wish it away. Convert Heschel to Christianity? A
monstrous idea. It is unlikely that the effort was ever m a d e . W h y ,
then, the profound indignation that resounds in his famousand to
m a n y o f us so shockingstatement, made at the time of Vatican II and
repeated still in the 1972 Stern interview: " I ' d rather go to Auschwitz
than be the object of conversion"? His indignation was n o doubt
rooted in his identification with his people's repeated suffering in the
course of history and the fear that, unless Vatican II explicitly
renounced mission to the Jews, the indignity and suffering would
continue.
71
Fortunately, H e s c h e l saw signs o f h o p e in our time, among both

Catholics and Protestants. I shall deal with Vatican II below, but let m e
quote here a few words in this context: 'T must say that I found
understanding for our sensitivity and position on this issue on the
27
part of distinguished leaders of the R o m a n Catholic C h u r c h . " S o m e
Protestant theologians also had b e g u n publicly to reject missionary
activity to the J e w s a m o n g t h e m Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich.
At a joint meeting o f the faculties of Jewish Theological Seminary and
Union Theological Seminary, Niebuhr repudiated Christian mission
ary activity in part because " 'Practically nothing can purify the
symbol of Christ as the image of G o d in the imagination of the J e w
from the taint with which ages of Christian oppression in the name of
2 S
Christ have tainted it.' " This is a reference to what has come to b e
29
called the " T e a c h i n g of C o n t e m p t . " R e n o u n c i n g all such teaching is
the second " p r e c e p t " incumbent today u p o n Christians w h o are
sincere in their desire to take Judaism seriously.
It is n o easy task. T h e problem is almost as old as Christianity.
Christianity was born o f Judaism, but "the children did not arise to
30
call the mother blessed; instead, they called her b l i n d . " T h e original
affirmation b e c a m e repudiation, Jewish faith came to be seen as
superseded and obsolete, the n e w covenant as abolishing and
replacing the first. "Contrast and contradiction rather than acknowl
edgment of roots, relatedness and indebtedness, became the
31
perspective."
A s we today k n o w so well, this perspective was to have tragic
consequences, once Christianity emerged from its initial status of a
persecuted minority religion and b e c a m e linked with the power of the
R o m a n Empire. Heschel is painfully aware of the heavy burden o f
guilt which Christianity has incurred vis-^-vis Judaism over the
centuries, including a share in the Holocaust. In his talk On Prayer at
the 1969 Liturgical Conference in Milwaukee h e said: "It is with shame
and anguish that I recall that it was possible for a R o m a n Catholic
church adjoining the extermination c a m p in Auschwitz to offer
c o m m u n i o n to the officers o f the c a m p , to people w h o day after day
32
drove thousands of people to b e killed in the gas c h a m b e r s . "
T h e first four words of this sentence strike m e as truly
extraordinary. Heschel speaks here of the failurethe gigantic
failureof a major religious c o m m u n i t y not his own; yet h e uses the
word " s h a m e . " Are w e ever ashamed of the sins of others? W e may be
shocked and scandalized, w e m a y accuse and blame. But w e are
ashamed only if in s o m e way w e feel related to, identified with, these
72
othersif, in other words, they are not totally " o t h e r " to us. H o w are
w e to explain H e s c h e l ' s u s e of the word in this context? It s e e m s to m e
that, for him, the failure of the church is not simply failure of the
church, but threatens faith everywhere; it is a warning to all w h o
would call themselves religious, a sign that w e all have lost our ability
to be shocked at the monstrous evil all about u s . It was this that m a d e
Auschwitz possible; we must regain our moral sensitivity. A n d so he
continues, in the very next sentence; " L e t there be an end to the
separation of church and G o d , . ., of religion a n d justice, of prayer
and c o m p a s s i o n . "
T h e Holocaust raises the issue of the complicity and silence of the
churches as n o other event in Western history does. This has become a
scandal for Jews and, I a m glad to say, for many Christians as well. For
some Jews, the scandal is so great that they refuse all dialogueI can
understand them. Others are willing to enter into conversation with
Christians, but wonder whether Christianity has lost its credibility since
Auschwitz. I can understand them alsosome Christians have raised
the same question. Heschel's reaction, however, appears different to
m e . Here he is, at the Liturgical Conference, speaking in very strong
terms of the failure of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet his words are not
so much an accusation directed at Catholics as a warning to religious
people, to religious institutions, everywhere. What could so easily and
understandably have become yet another wall between us becomes
instead a source of anguish at h u m a n frailty, a frailty from which none
of usnot Jews, not Christiansare exempt. " W e have n o triumph to
report except the slow, painstaking effort to redeem single moments in
the lives of single men, in the lives of small communities. W e do not
come on the clouds of heaven but grope through the mists of history."
Notice the " w e , " again a matter of terminology/ seemingly small
perhaps, yet so significant. H e s c h e l ' s concern with the plight of being
h u m a n , with the tragedy of the h u m a n condition, cuts across all
religious creeds. W e are all sinners, J e w s and Christians alike.
Perhaps it is this awareness, this d e e p sense of " w e - n e s s , " that
enables him to refrain from c o n d e m n i n g Christians. I at least do not
feel c o n d e m n e d as I read him, nor do I feel that m y church is
c o n d e m n e d by this mannot even w h e n he points to our sins during
the Holocaust. Indeed, I have heard s o m e Christians speak much
more harshly of Christianity's failure at that time; I have spoken of it
m u c h more harshly myself. Is there not s o m e d e e p font o f compassion
in Heschel for all h u m a n creatures, everywhere, without exception, a
compassion which is s o m e h o w lackingor at least diminishedin
73
me, in many of us? I a m not sure. But I do know that his refusal to
condemn is profoundly healing. I believe it is one of his greatest gifts to
us as we strive for reconciliation. H e was not blindfar from it: he saw
33
more clearly than many. "His was not the simplicity of i n n o c e n c e . "
Yet he does not judge or condemn. It is as if h e suffers with us who have
failed. And this, after all, is the literal meaning of compassion.
" A s long as there is a shred of hatred in the h u m a n heart, as long as
there is a vacuum without compassion a n y w h e r e in the world, there is
an e m e r g e n c y . " A n d w h y is there so m u c h hatred and rage? " B e c a u s e
34
w e do not k n o w h o w to r e p e n t . " But if all are in the same
predicament, there is also h o p e for all. "History is not a blind alley,
and guilt is not an abyss. There is always a way that leads out of guilt:
3 5
repentance or turning to G o d . "
It is typical of Heschel that the overcoming of hostility, the healing
of ancient w o u n d s , is a task for both communities. He calls upon J e w s
to ponder seriously the responsibility in J e w i s h history for having
given birth to two world religions. T h e children did not arise to call the
mother blessed but, h e asksit is his question, I would not dare
ask"does not the failure of children reflect u p o n their mother? D o
not the sharp deviations from Jewish tradition o n the part of the early
Christians w h o w e r e J e w s indicate s o m e failure of communication
36
within the spiritual climate of first-century P a l e s t i n e ? " Heschel asks
this question after centuries of Christian defamation and persecution
of Jews; after the Holocaust. . . .
Again in typical fashion, h e moves from the problem, the difficulty,
the tragedy, to the opportunity, the n e w possibility, the hope.
Christianity's turning away from the ancient and pernicious teaching
is only the first stage in a n e w era o f friendship between Christians
and Jews. Heschel believes that w e live in a uniquely privileged
m o m e n t of time, w h e n Christians look to J e w s with w o n d e r and hope,
a fact which confronts J e w s in turn with a n e w challenge: " W e J e w s
are being put to a n e w test. Christians, in m a n y parts o f the world,
have suddenly b e g u n to look at the J e w s with astonishment. In
particular, the attitude of the Christian community in America is
undergoing a change. Instead of hostility, there is expectation. . . .
M a n y Christians believe that we J e w s carry the Tablets in our arms,
hugging t h e m lovingly. T h e y believe that w e continue to relish and
nurture the w i s d o m that G o d has entrusted to us, that w e are loaded
37
with spiritual t r e a s u r e s . "
Permit m e here to quote a brief excerpt from the 1973 French
Bishops' Guidelines for Christians in their Relationship with Jews, which is
74
proof, I believe, that Heschel's hope was not overly sanguine:
The permanence of this people through the ages, its survival over
civilizations, its presence as a rigorous and exacting partner vis h vis
Christianity are a fact of major importance which we can treat
neither with ignorance nor with contempt. The Church which
claims to speak in the name of Jesus Christ and which through Him
finds itself bound, since its origin and forever, to the Jewish people,
perceives in the centuries-long and uninterrupted existence of this
38
people a sign the full truth of which it would like to understand.
This n e w Christian expectation is a challenge to the Jewish

community, a kairos. " H e r e is a unique responsibility. S u c h occasions
39
come rarely twice. Are w e prepared for the t e s t ? "
H e at least did what he could to meet it. Fritz Rothschild has written
that, w h e n asked later w h y h e had let himself b e c o m e involved with
Vatican II, Heschel replied: " T h e issues at stake were profoundly
theological. To refuse contact with Christian theologians is, to m y
mind, barbarous. T h e r e is a great expectation a m o n g Christians today
40
that Judaism has something unique to o f f e r . "
A n d so h e allowed himself to b e c o m e involved with Vatican
II"involved" is too weak a word. H e gave o f himself tirelessly
during the council, to the point of exhaustion at times, on one
occasion traveling to R o m e for a special audience with Pope Paul VI
literally o n the eve of Y o m Kippur. Let m e at this point m o v e into the
second part of m y paper and consider Heschel's role at Vatican II.
HESCHEL AND THE SECOND VATICAN C O U N C I L "
It is generally k n o w n that Heschel played an important role at

Vatican II, although a detailed study o n his contribution has yet to
42
a p p e a r . During the preparatory stage Heschel acted as consultant to
the American Jewish Committee and other Jewish agencies, which
had b e e n asked by Cardinal Bea's Secretariat for Promoting Christian
Unity to prepare background documentation for the council. With
Heschel's help three m e m o r a n d a were submitted to Cardinal Bea. T h e
first two dealt with various problem areas in Catholic teaching and
liturgy. In a third, submitted in M a y , 1962, Heschel proposed that a
n e w beginning b e m a d e with a Vatican Council declaration that would
recognize the " p e r m a n e n t preciousness" of J e w s as J e w s , rather than
seeing t h e m as potential converts, and that would expressly repudiate
43
anti-Semitism and the deicide c h a r g e .
75
In February, 1962, the year in which the council was to open, three of
Heschel's books were sent to Cardinal Bea, w h o warmly acknowledged
them "as a strong c o m m o n spiritual bond between u s . " The books were
God in Search of Man, Man Is Not Alone, and The Sabbath.
Discussion of the Declaration on the J e w s was postponed to the
second session, scheduled to o p e n in September, 1963. In the spring
of that year Cardinal Bea visited the United States, speaking at
Harvard and in N e w York City. Heschel chaired a private meeting
between Bea and a group of Jewish leaders and was the speaker at an
interfaith banquet held in the cardinal's honor, which was attended
by U . N . officials a n d political and religious leaders. O n this occasion
Heschel addressed the c o m m o n threat faced by all h u m a n beings
today, the threat of evil, of the darkness all about us, a darkness of our
o w n making. He also spoke of the great spiritual renewal inspired by
P o p e J o h n XXIII.
Pope J o h n died o n J u n e 4 , 1963, and the second session opened in
September under his successor, Paul V I , w h o supported the
secretariat's position with regard to the Jewish people. T h e promising
beginning that had b e e n made was, however, destined to undergo
m u c h turbulence and controversy. Despite the support of Paul V I ,
opposition to the proposed declaration grew and pressures on the
secretariat b e g a n to m o u n t . In N o v e m b e r , 1963, Heschel wrote to
Cardinal B e a , expressing his d e e p concern that the theme of
conversion o f the J e w s had b e e n introduced into a n e w text.
A n e w version of this draft appeared in a newspaper story shortly
before the third session was to open. T h e original text had b e e n
watered down, and the h o p e was expressed for the Jews' eventual
conversion. In a statement o f S e p t e m b e r 3, 1964, Heschel strongly
c o n d e m n e d the n e w version. His harshest words were reserved for
the theme of conversion, and s h o w that h e could, if necessary, be
sarcastica tone which was generally quite alien to him:
it must be stated that spiritual fratricide is hardly a means of

"reciprocal understanding." . . . Jews throughout the world will be
dismayed by a call from the Vatican to abandon their faith in a
generation which witnessed the massacre of six million J e w s . . . on
a continent where the dominant religion was not Islam, Buddhism,
or Shintoism.
T h e situation w a s so critical that the A J C arranged an audience for

Heschel with P o p e Paul VI for S e p t e m b e r 1 4 , 1 9 6 4 , literally the eve of
76
Y o m Kippur. Despite the great personal inconvenience to him,

Heschel felt h e must go. T h e audience lasted thirty-five minutes, and
Heschel later described the pope as having b e e n friendly and cordial.
Maneuvering in both camps continued into the fourth session.
Eventually e n o u g h support for the earlier text was marshalled so that
the document that was officially approved o n October 28, 1965, and
which w e k n o w as Nostra Aetate, did not make any reference to
proselytizing. It was greeted with a mixture of relief and regret; as
admittedly a compromise, but also, as making possible a new
beginning. There is n o doubt that the latter view has indeed been
vindicated b y developments that have taken place since thendevel
o p m e n t s which are greatly indebted to A b r a h a m Heschel.
Let m e speak briefly about what I call the aftermath of Heschel's
involvement in Vatican II, both from his point of view and from that of
the highest authority in the Catholic Church.
There are several references to Pope J o h n XXIII in Heschel's
writings. In the 1966 Jubilee article already referred to, Heschel wrote
that " P o p e J o h n was a great miracle, w h o captured the hearts of
Christians and non-Christians alike through his sheer love of
humanity. With J o h n and the Council hearts were openednot only
44
windows . . . but h e a r t s . "
Reflecting on the controversy and on his successful attempts to
delete any reference to the conversion of J e w s from the council
document, Heschel said in 1967: " T h e S c h e m a o n the J e w s is the first
statement of the Church in history the first Christian discourse
dealing with Judaismwhich is devoid of any expression of h o p e for
45
conversion."
W h a t about the pope w h o had received Heschel in a special
audience two days before the third session? Apparently, Heschel's
influence on Paul VI had gone far b e y o n d that meeting. In a general
audience in R o m e on January 3 1 , 1 9 7 3 , shortly after Heschel's death,
the pope reminded the pilgrims that " e v e n before w e have m o v e d in
search of God, G o d has c o m e in search of u s . " T h e editors of America
magazine, in quoting the Pope's words, c o m m e n t e d that the most
remarkable aspect about this statement was the fact that the
subsequently published text of the papal talk cited the writings of
A b r a h a m Joshua Heschel as its source. In the m e m o r y of veteran
observers of the R o m a n scene, this citation was an unprecedented
46
public reference by a pope to a writer w h o was not a Christian.
77
HESCHEL'S INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIAN THOUGHT
I believe that Heschel's impact o n Christianity goes beyond his

involvement in the ecumenical m o v e m e n t and his work at Vatican II. I
shall summarize it in three brief points.
First: W e have already seen that Heschel's books were read by
Cardinal Bea and Pope Paul VI. L o n g before, however, as early as
1951, Reinhold Niebuhr hailed Heschel as a " c o m m a n d i n g and
47
authoritative v o i c e . . . in the religious life o f A m e r i c a . " A s the body
of Heschel's work grew, so did his influence on Christian theologians.
J. A . Sanders has proposed the intriguing thesis that Karl Barth's
Humanity of God, published in 1956, w a s influenced b y God in Search of
48
Man, published the year b e f o r e . W h e t h e r through personal
friendship or his writingsand frequently through bothHeschel
affected the very fabric of Christian thought.
Second: Because G o d was a shattering reality for Heschel, because
the world of the Hebrew prophets was uniquely his own, Sanders
wrote, " m a n y Christian thinkers learned that G o d already was, and
had been for a long time, what traditional Christian dogma taught w a s
Precisely because he was steeped in his own tradition,

because he was Jewish in every fiber of his being, Heschel
was able to mediate to Christians the riches of what is also
their biblical heritage.
49
revealed only in C h r i s t . " Precisely because h e was steeped in his
o w n tradition, because he was Jewish in every fiber of his being,
Heschel was able to mediate to Christians the riches of w h a t is also
their biblical heritage. He saw more clearly than some Christian
theologians that the battle with Marcion has not yet b e e n w o n , that all
too often the Hebrew Bible still takes second place to the N e w
Testament. H e gave a vivid illustration of this from Vatican II, where
each morning after M a s s an ancient copy o f the Gospel w a s solemnly
carried d o w n to the nave of St. Peter's and deposited o n the altar. " I t
50
was the Gospel only, and no other b o o k . " A simple pious practice,
or the expression of a still deep-rooted theological view that the
Hebrew Scriptures are not fully equal to the Christian Scriptures?
T h e latter, it would seem, in light o f a text Heschel quotes from
78
Karl Rahner, t h a t " 'ultimately G o d effected the production of the Old

Testament books to the extent that they were to have a certain
5 1
function and authority in regard to the N e w T e s t a m e n t . ' " Against
such a view Heschel insisted, again and again, that the Hebrew Bible
is primary for Christians as m u c h as J e w s , because J e s u s ' under
standing of G o d was the Jewish understanding of G o d , Jesus'
preaching was about Torah and the Prophets, and the Christian
liturgy is permeated with the Psalms. Heschel's conviction is being
52
validated today by the best Christian biblical s c h o l a r s . W e might ask,
h o w e v e r , is it really validation of Heschel, or instead, Heschel's
influence on these scholars?
M y last point is closely related to the second. M o r e perhaps than
a n y o n e else Heschel has o p e n e d u p to Christians the splendors of
Jewish traditionof the Bible, the sabbath, Hassidism, the rich life of
East European J e w s prior to the destruction, the mystical meaning of
Israel. " T o encounter him was to 'feel' the force a n d spirit of Judaism,
t h e depth a n d grandeur of it. He led o n e , even thrust o n e , into the
53
mysterious greatness of the Jewish tradition." Allow m e to quote
h e r e s o m e words from the guiding spirit of this symposium, Dr. J o h n
Merkle, In a letter to m e , Dr. Merkle wrote, " S i m p l y by living and
teaching as he did, Heschel m a y have done more to inspire an
e n h a n c e d appreciation of Judaism a m o n g non-Jews than any other
5 4
J e w in post-biblical times . . . . "
These words resonated in m e at the time, I had a hunch they were
true; but I was then only just beginning m y work on this paper. M y
research over the past months has confirmed that hunch. If Dr. Merkle
is indeed correct, then this is, I believe, Abraham Heschel's greatest
contribution to the reconciliation of our two communities. For I have
long been convinced that the greatest hope for achieving this
reconciliation, the surest antidote against Christian anti-Judaism, is for
Christians to discover the splendor of a Jewish tradition alive today; so
profoundly alive that it can give birth to an Abraham Heschel.
Let m e close with words which H e s c h e l wrote about another man, a
dear friend, Reinhold Niebuhr, at the end of a penetrating critique of
Niebuhr's writings o n the mystery of evil. T h e words s e e m to m e to
apply also to the m a n w h o wrote them:
His spirituality combines heaven and earth, as it were. It does not

separate soul from body, or mind from the unity of man's physical
and spiritual life. His way is an example of one who does justly,
loves mercy, and walks humbly with his God, an example of the
55
unity of worship and living."
79
NOTES
1. Conversation with Toby Stein, January, 1983.

2. "Agent of God's Compassion," America, 128 (March 10, 1973): 205.
3. "The Contribution of Abraham Joshua Heschel/' Judaism, 32 (Winter 1983): 57.
4. "Heschel and Vatican IIJewish-Christian Relations," p. 4. Paper delivered to the
Memorial Symposium in honor of Abraham Joshua Heschel, the Jewish Theological
Seminary, New York City, February 23, 1983.
5. "Choose Life!" Jubilee, January, 1966, p. 38.
6. Jacob Y. Teshima, "My Memory of Professor Abraham Joshua Heschel," Conservative
Judaism, 6 (Fall, 1973): 80.
7. "What We Must Do Together," Religious Education, 62 (March-April 1967): 140.
8. "No Religion Is an Island," Union Seminary Quarterly Review 21 (January 1966): 117-34.
This address also appears in F. E. Talmage, ed. Disputation and Dialogue (New York: KTAV,
1975), pp. 337-59. All my references are to the text in Talmage; henceforth the abbreviated
title, "No Island," will be used. The text here referred to occurs on p. 345 in Talmage.
9. "No Island," pp. 347-48.
10. This and the preceding quote are from "No Island," pp. 348 and 352, resp.
11. "The Jewish Notion of God and Christian Renewal," Renewal of Religious Thought, vol. 1
of Theology of Renewal, ed. L. K. Shook (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968), p. 112.
12. "Protestant Renewal: a Jewish View," The Insecurity of Freedom: Essays on Human
Existence (New York: Farrar, Straus and Girbux, 1966), p. 177.
13. "No Island/' p. 349.
14. "The Ecumenical Movement," Insecurity of Freedom, p. 182.
15. "No Island," p. 353.
16. "No Island/' p. 352.
17. "From Mission to Dialogue," Conservative Judaism 21 (Spring 1967): 2.
18. "No Island," p. 356.
19. Jubilee, January, 1966, p. 39.
20. References here and through the following paragraph are from "No Island," pp. 344,
345, and 346.
21. "The Ecumenical Movement," p. 180.
22. "No Island/' p. 347.
23. "The Ecumenical M o v e m e n t / ' p. 182.
24. "No Island," p. 351.
25. "From Mission to Dialogue," p. 9.
26. "No Island," p. 355.
28. "No Island/' p. 356.
9. The term was first used in the 1950s by the French historian Jules Isaac. See his Teaching
of Contempt (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964); and also Jesus and Israel (New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971). The term has in recent years become part of our
vocabulary when referring to the history of Christian anti-Judaism.
30. "No Island," pp. 330-31.
31. "Protestant Renewal: a Jewish View," p. 169.
32. "On Prayer." Reprinted in Conservative Judaism, 25 (Fall 1970):6.
33. W. D. Davies, "Conscience, Scholar, Witness/' America, March 10, 1973, p. 215.
34. "On Prayer," p. 6.
35. "Sacred Images of Man," The bisecurity of Freedom, p. 165.
36. "No Island," p. 350.
38. Stepping Stones to Further Jewish-Christian Relations, compiled by Helga Croner
(London-New York: Stimulus Books, 1970), p. 60.
39. "From Mission to Diaogue," p. 11.
40. Fritz A. Rothschild, "Abraham Joshua Heschel," Modern Theologians: Christians and
Jews, ed. Thomas E. Bird (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967,), p. 173.
80
41. The entire section dealing with Vatican II has been greatly abbreviated from the
original text for the purposes of this article.
42. On February 23, 1983, at a one-day symposium held at the Jewish Theological
Seminary in memory of Heschel, Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum, who had worked closely with
Heschel throughout the council, presented a paper on Heschel and Vatican II. I am deeply
indebted to Rabbi Tanenbaum for giving me a copy of his paper and permitting me to use it.
43. Tanenbaum, "Heschel and Vatican IIJewish-Christian Relations." Paper presented
at the Memorial Symposium in honor of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. The following
material on Heschel and Vatican II is taken largely from this paper, especially pp. 1 5 , 1 6 , 1 7 ,
and 21.
44. Jubilee, January, 1966, p. 31.
45. "From Mission to Dialogue," pp. 10 ff.
46. America, March 10, 1973, p. 202.
47. Reinhold Niebuhr, "Masterly Analysis of Faith," review of Man Is not Alone, New York
Herald Tribune Book Review, April, 1951, p. 12.
48. Sanders, "An Apostle to the Gentiles," Conservative Judaism 28 (Fall 1973) :61.
49. Sanders, p. 61.
50. "The Jewish Notion of God and Christian Renewal," in Renewal of Religious Thought,
vol. 1 of Theology of Renewal, ed. L. K. Shook (New York, Herder and Herder, 1968), p. 112.
51. Quoted from Rahner by Heschel in "The Jewish Notion of God," p. 112, n. 3.
52. See, for instance, Bernhard W. Anderson, "Confrontation with the Bible," in Theology
Today 30 (October 1973):267-71.
53. W. D. Davies, "Conscience, Scholar, Witness," America, March 10, 1973, p. 214.
54. John C. Merkle in a letter to Eva Fleischner, October 10, 1982.
55. "Confusion of Good and Evil," The Insecurity of Freedom, p. 147.
81
HOMILETICAL RESOURCES
FROM THE HEBREW BIBLE
FOR LENT
MICHAEL CHERNICK
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE JEWISH HOMILY
" O u r people is only a people by virtue of the T o r a h . " This

sentiment, enunciated in the tenth century by Saadyah Gaon, a
Jewish leader, legalist, and philosopher, has b e e n at the core of Jewish
homiletics even prior to its actual formulation. At first, Torah was the
Pentateuch, but soon the term covered the Prophets and Writings as
well. Interpretations which served as the basis for all of Jewish life
b e c a m e the laws of Torah which structured Jewish communal and
cultural life. T h o u g h these laws guided a sector w e would n o w call
secular, J e w s recognized t h e m as religious regulations because they
grew out of G o d ' s revelation to Israel. Similarly, the lore, theology,
philosophy, and "salvation history" o f Judaism had their roots in this
revelation called Torah. Finally, the term " T o r a h " came to signify all
texts, traditions, and sentiments which J e w s recognized as holy and
enduring. T h u s , Torah grows, and the outgrowths themselves
b e c o m e Torah for other generations, and so the process goes. " T h e
words of the Torah are fruitful a n d multiply" (Babylonian Talmud
Hagigah 3b; see bibliography).
T h e special m e t h o d by which this growth took place is called
midrash in Hebrew. S o m e scholars feel that this process began in the
biblical period itself, but its most significant developments occurred in
the postbiblical era. T h e w o r d comes from a H e b r e w root meaning to
inquire, seek, or require. All these translational shades of meaning are
important because they all contribute to a n accurate understanding o f
the task of midrash. T h e J e w i s h community's rootedness in the sacred
texts and oral traditions o f its past created a dialectic with its will to live
Michael Chernick is an Orthodox rabbi who is associate professor of rabbinic literature at
Hebrew Union CollegeJewish Institute of Religion (Reform) in New York. He was
ordained at Yeshiva University and among his writings is "Some TaJmudic Responses to
Christianity, Third and Fourth Centuries," Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Summer, 1980.
82
according to G o d ' s Word in the present and future. As the community

recognized that it required renewal for its present and future, it
inquired of and sought a link with its past. T h e act of interpreting the
past for the needs of the presentthat was and is midrash. W h e n
interpreters sought in Torah for communal standards, rules, and law,
they created halakic midrash, interpretations to produce or support
law. W h e n they searched Torah for theology, spiritual values,
religious principles, ethics, consolation, even entertainment, they
created aggadic midrash or homilies.
O n e should not be misled into thinking that the interpretational
activity described above was dedicated to the pursuit of a progressive
uncovering of the plain meaning of ancient texts or traditions. That
was the work of commentators and translators, and the Jewish people
have produced such people. But the midrashists' work was
something else. T h e y saw their task as making the text and tradition
live in the midst of the community. H e n c e , as they searched and
inquired of the past's legacy, perhaps a verse, or part o f a verse, or
even a single word of the tradition might, as it were, leap from the
page to provide for the need of the day. T h e element that provided for
the community's sustenance was used for that purpose. Inevitably,
this meant that issues of conformity to the text's "plain m e a n i n g , "
though significant, were not primary, and sometimes they were
simply overlooked. T h e "preacher of D u b n o w , " R. Jacob Kranz
(nineteenth century), described the process as one of making arrows
appear to have hit the bull's eye by painting targets around them. That
view rightly indicates that Jewish homilies have b e e n most significant
w h e n our teachers found the issues pressing hardest on the Jewish
people's minds and hearts and addressed t h e m through the creative
and sensitive application of the tradition to life.
The process I have described generated various types of homiletical
statements. S o m e retold and embellished biblical narratives or
painted often startling and probing portraits of biblical personalities.
G a p s in the Bible's narrative were filled with oral traditions and
folk-lore, and the text b e c a m e illuminated with a n e w light. In such
cases, the midrashic preacher used the Bible's text archetypically. In
this m a n n e r the redemption from Egyptian bondage could become
the symbol of G o d ' s saving power in any generation, and M o s e s could
b e c o m e the model for virtuous c o m m u n a l leaders and teachers of any
Jewish community. T h e s e homilies gave assurance that n o Jewish
generation was an orphan. T h e nation's G o d and its fathers and
mothers traveled along with all Israel through time and space. Their
83
presence and experiences were as vital and important today as they

were in the past. Through the homily, the Bible and biblical forebears
lived again and thus could guide the generations.
A second homiletical format addressed the meaning o f Jewish
religious and ethical life. T h e homily might typically center on a key
area of Jewish religious observance in order to explore the multiplicity
of spiritual a n d moral messages it contained. For example, a timely
homily o n the observance o f the Feast of Tabernacles ( H e b . , Sukkot,
see Lev. 23:39-43), a holy day which usually occurs in the middle of
the fall, might stress the need for our renewing our closeness with
nature. T h e preacher might suggest that w e do this in order to
experience our shared "creatureliness" to the end that we m a y
recognize G o d as the creator. He or she might indicate that seven days
and nights spent in the outdoors, under roofs o f natural material and
open enough to see the h e a v e n s , teaches us that the houses w e build
sometimes protect us too well. In t h e m w e do not see or feel either the
grandeur o f G o d or the shivering of those w h o have only huts as
shelter. In this w a y a ritual central to the observance o f the Jewish
festivals b e c o m e s a challenge to recognize G o d more directly in our
lives and to begin again, with G o d ' s help, the work of redeeming the
downtrodden. T h e m e s s a g e is consistent with the rationale which
Torah gives for the observance, " s o that your generations m a y k n o w
that I provided shelters for the Israelites w h e n I brought them forth
from Egypt, I a m the Eternal" (Lev. 23:43, author's translation). It has
only b e e n m a d e more manifest and clear b y t h e process of midrash.
Finally, Jewish preaching certainly h a s concerned itself with purely
theological themes as well. I did not, however, place this form o f
homily first because it is a less commonplace p h e n o m e n o n . In the
central work of rabbinic Judaism, the Talmud, little direct attention is
given to purely theological issues and dogma. This p h e n o m e n o n set
the tone for Jewish teaching in general and for sermons as a particular
form of Jewish teaching. Nevertheless, important events confronting
the Jewish community from the outside or from within frequently set
off theological probing, discussion, and debate. For example,
Judaism's confrontation with the thinking o f the C h u r c h Fathers led it
to consider the question o f covenantal mutability and the question of
w h e t h e r G o d changes His/Her mind. Similarly, Karaism, an internal
Jewish m o v e m e n t of the eighth century, which sought to dispense
with the rabbinic tradition and to understand the Bible as literally as
possible, moved rabbis to m a k e theological responses. Obviously, the
rabbinic Jewish community was anxious to prove to itself and its
84
Karaitic opponents that its tradition was as m u c h Torah as the written

word o f the Bible. Judaism as w e k n o w it today is testimony to the
success of such efforts.
O t h e r issues confront the Jewish community today and, of course,
generate theological sermons as well as books and essays. W e
confront again the ongoing religious problem o f evil, having endured
the Holocaust. W e re-evaluate the theological significance of the Holy
L a n d because of Israel's rebirth. W e re-examine the idea a n d meaning
of Jewish c h o s e n n e s s as w e confront religious pluralism as a serious
reality in American society. Indeed, the very m e a n i n g of G o d becomes
an urgent sermonic issue in an age that has spoken of G o d ' s " d e a t h "
a n d in a time w h i c h has questioned the meaningfulness of almost
everything. J e w s , like all others w h o are part o f a community of
believers, cannot avoid the theological task w h e n the m o m e n t
d e m a n d s a theological response. H e n c e , w e have a renewal of the
theological sermon in the synagogue as age-old Judaism seeks to
speak of G o d in the contemporary world. N e w d e m a n d s and n e w
inquiries lead to n e w midrash. T h e process g o e s on, a n d w e "renew
our days as of o l d " (Lam. 5:21).
Finally, as part of this introduction a n d orientation to the Jewish
homily, I believe it is important to note the significance of
particularism a n d universalism as factors in J e w i s h life and thought.
Judaism has not b e e n a missionizing faith for well over a millennium,
nor h a s it b e e n a "majority" faith at any time. This h a s m e a n t that
J e w i s h teachers have directed their m e s s a g e inward toward the
Jewish community for a long time. This reality has shaped the
language, form of expression, and contents of the Jewish homily
making it a particularistic work, a work best understood by J e w s . Side
b y side with this particularism there has always b e e n a strong current
of Jewish universalism. It expresses itself in the h o p e for the "days of
the messiah"" in the future a n d legislation "for the sake of p e a c e " (BT
Gittin 59a, 61a) in the here and n o w . Jewish liturgy, especially during
the High Holy D a y s in the fall, prays for the entire world's sustenance
a n d safety. Similarly, Jewish lore explains the seventy sacrifices of the
Sukkot festival (Num. 2 9 ) , which w e r e offered w h e n the temple
stood, as offerings o n behalf o f the "seventy n a t i o n s " which
constitute the h u m a n family.
This mixture of the particular a n d the universal makes the Jewish
homily a partly accessible a n d partly inaccessible communication to
the non-Jewish world. In each o f m y attempts to share what a J e w
would teach about the H e b r e w Bible sources of the lectionary for
85
Lent, I struggled with this reality. It is therefore m y h o p e and prayer

that the results of this struggle will provide a glimpse into the
traditions of Jewish preaching and teaching formulated in such a way
that all m a y share their treasure.
Note: T h e following lections, taken from the new Common

Lectionary, are for the second, third, and fifth Sundays in Lent. Two
of the lections have been divided into two parts for interpretation.
Preachers may want to combine these for one Sunday's sermon or
use them for other preaching occasions in Lent.
GENESIS 17:1-10
" A n d w h e n Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Eternal appeared

to Abram and said to him: T am God Almighty [ Heb., ' / Shaddai ] .
Walk in m y presence and be whole. And I will make m y covenant
between me and you, and will multiply you greatly' " (Gen. 17:1-2).
With these words w e begin the covenant history of the Jewish
people. G o d speaks to Abraham as 'El Shaddai in this event, and as
the rabbinic interpreters tell us, this n a m e indicates God's ability to
limit. G o d is the o n e w h o said, " e n o u g h " (Heb., dai). Had God not
s p o k e n this word, creation would have extended infinitely (Gen.
Rabbah, 46:2). T h u s , paradoxically, G o d ' s "limited creation" becomes
the sign of G o d ' s omnipotence. W h y does G o d address A b r a m under
this name at this m o m e n t ?
Jewish mystics understood G o d ' s act of limitation in an especially
profound way. T h e y taught that in order to grant space to a finite and
corporeal world, G o d b o u n d e d himself in. This act m a d e way for the
universe. M o r e than that, it made room for covenantal relationship.
By limiting himself, G o d provided the possibility of an " o t h e r , " and
the existence of another creates the potential for sharing. In covenant,
that sharing occurs. T h e parties to the covenant give and receive
according to the terms they have set with o n e another. T h e binding
quality of these terms limits the parties to the covenant, but the unity
it forges e n h a n c e s them.
Amazingly, we find that G o d was indeed under limits as Abram's
covenant partner. W h e n considering action against S o d o m and
Gomorrah, G o d said, "Shall I hide from Abraham that which I a m
doing seeing that A b r a h a m shall surely b e c o m e a great and mighty
nation?" (Gen. 18:17-18). G o d w a s no longer a free agent in history.
86
Covenanted to Abraham, h e would have to counsel with the partner

a n d hear his suggestions, A b r a h a m ' s daring bargaining before G o d
b e c o m e s more comprehensible in light of the covenant. G o d must
hear his requests a n d even grant t h e m so long as A b r a h a m upholds
his covenantal obligations. A n d so it w a s . A b r a h a m asks for God's
forbearance toward S o d o m and G o m o r r a h o n condition that there are
ten righteous persons in the cities, a n d G o d grants it.
G o d ' s appearance to A b r a m u n d e r the n a m e 'El Shaddai expressed
G o d ' s willingness to be limited by covenant, but was A b r a m prepared
to sacrifice his a u t o n o m y to G o d ? H u m a n willingness to part with the
figment of our o m n i p o t e n c e is not the n o r m . T h e primordial serpent
in E d e n k n e w that well w h e n h e offered A d a m a n d Eve the seemingly
limitless power attached to being like G o d (Gen. 3:5). Yet, Abram,
despite his tremendous wealth a n d power, was well-trained in the
recognition of his limitations. H e and his wife, Sarai, could not get
what they desired most, a s o n a n d heir. Addressed b y 'El Shaddai,
A b r a m recognizes more than a covenantal offer. H e recognizes a God
w h o understands w h a t limitations m e a n . H e recognizes G o d in
search of man, a G o d w h o , like himself, needs another.
The sign of the covenant which G o d demands, circumcision,
becomes a more comprehensible symbol in light of the above. T h e sign
of circumcision is placed on the organ which itself connects most
intimately two lovers in search of ultimate sharing. Neither one alone is
complete. Only in their union can some sense of wholeness be found.
Finding one another depends on admitting limitation, confessing
mutual dependence, and risking intimacy. All the elements of covenant
are present between honest lovers, and G o d and Abram love each
other. Circumcision also cedes to G o d Abram's control over his own
flesh. B y refashioning his o w n body according to God's command,
Abram expresses that he is not so autonomous as to render the notion of
covenant meaningless. Abram shows that h e recognizes self-limitation
and acquiescence to the demands of an other as the necessary elements
of sharing, of giving, and, ultimately, of receiving in return. As w e
know, God will test Abram, even to the point o f asking for the return of
all he covenanted for, to the end that G o d will bless Abraham with all
things (Gen 24:1). After the events at Moriah, both partnersGod and
AbramwUl be bound forever. But Abram demands things of God, too,
and at the covenantal moment described in Genesis 15, it is a child that
Abram seeks. N o w , w h e n God demands that Abram make himself
physically less, now is w h e n that demand is honored!
Covenant, because of the richness of connections it creates, is often
87
bewildering in its manifestations. It e m p o w e r s a n d controls, limits

a n d e n h a n c e s , equalizes a n d points out the inequalities of its divine
a n d h u m a n partners (see G e n . 18:23-27). But n o matter h o w
bewildering aspects of the covenantal relationship may b e , o n e issue
is clear. T h e b o n d s of the covenant commit its parties to mutual
concern, care, and in A b r a h a m ' s case, love. G o d n o w knows that
those w h o will follow A b r a h a m will have b e e n taught by him to b e
G o d ' s ambassadors to the family o f humankind. T h e y will sanctify
G o d ' s n a m e before all the world. A b r a h a m ' s seed will k n o w that their
parent's merit and model assure t h e m o f G o d ' s love. G o d needed
A b r a h a m a n d n e e d s u s as well. After all, ' E l Shaddai covenanted with
A b r a h a m ' s children after him. S o long as w e c a n y our covenantal
responsibility as A b r a h a m did, w e m a y live with h o p e that G o d will,
in the e n d , reward covenantal responsiveness with redemption.
J e w s throughout the generations have spoken of " t h e joy o f
c o m m a n d m e n t s . " Living u n d e r the covenantal obligations o f Torah
w a s never a b u r d e n to faithful J e w s . Indeed, w e have insisted that
those w h o observe the Torah are truly free (Mishnah, A b o t 6:2). T h e
covenant has always reminded us of marriage, in this case, between
God and Israel. O u r liturgymorning and eveningconnects G o d ' s
love with G o d ' s law. T h u s , w e signal with our lives that w e believe
that w e can give something to G o d as G o d has given to us, " I shall
betroth y o u to m e forever" (Hosea 2:20) is whispered from God to
Israel and back again as each Jewish generation renews the covenant
and imprints its sign in the flesh of its children.
GENESIS 17:15-19
" O n e w h o changes his n a m e changes his l u c k " (BT Rosh Hashanah

16b). G o d changes A b r a m into A b r a h a m a n d Sarai into Sarah a n d
their fortunes c h a n g e completely. " W h o would have said to Abraham
that Sarah should suckle children?" (Gen. 21:7). T h e answer before
the renaming would have b e e n , " N o o n e ! " But Sarah did give birth to
a son, and A b r a h a m called him Isaac, "laughter," as God had told
him. W h a t is in a n a m e !
At creation's beginning we find G o d giving things their n a m e . Day,
night, heaven, sea, m a n , a n d w o m a n all receive their n a m e s from G o d
according to the biblical narrative. G o d brings all living things to
A d a m w h o gives t h e m n a m e s , a n d G o d w a s interested to see what
A d a m would call t h e m (Gen. 2:19-20). N a m e s are the beginning o f
relationships. H a d A d a m failed to n a m e the creatures h e lived with,
88
G o d would not have created w o m a n . A d a m would have s h o w n that

h e did not need others. But G o d k n e w A d a m ' s need. After all G o d had
m a d e him and so k n e w "it is not good for m a n to be a l o n e " (Gen.
2:18). N o w A d a m w o u l d recognize the n e e d for relationship through
his desire to b e able to s o m e h o w speak s o m e o n e else's n a m e , to
recognize others' existences a n d natures.
G o d ' s role in changing A b r a m ' s a n d Sarai's n a m e expresses God's
special relationship to these people as G o d ' s own. N o longer will
A b r a m be T e r a h ' s son, nor will Sarai b e daughter to h e r parents.
A b r a h a m a n d Sarah are G o d ' s n e w creation, n a m e d b y G o d and, thus,
b e c o m e n e w creatures with a n e w future planned b y their maker.
T h e story of A b r a h a m a n d Sarah tells us that the creation story
repeats and repeats. Each n e w creation receives a greater covenantal
charge a n d opportunity. A d a m and Eve covenanted with G o d to have
E d e n for the observance o f one obligation. N o a h ' s generations had all
of the n e w creation they would share in if they would h e w to G o d ' s
1
seven covenantal d e m a n d s . A b r a h a m a n d Sarah, c h o s e n to create
a n e w after the disobedience of the tower of Babel, set the stage for
Sinai. W h a t connection links creation a n d covenant? T h e n e e d of both
h u m a n k i n d a n d G o d for o n e another. G o d , the Almighty, the
complete, the perfect, s o m e h o w , s o m e w a y chooses to n e e d us, to
n e e d another. W e , seeking to be whole, n e e d Him/Her, too. Covenant
creates the link and forges the b o n d b e t w e e n u s .
T h e knowledge that there is the ongoing renewal o f creation, that
" G o d renews eternally and each day the w o r k of the B e g i n n i n g "
(Prayer Book, morning service), provides us with h o p e . N o matter
w h a t flaws in creation or the covenant which attends it w e have
wrought, tomorrow w e begin a n e w . According to the Jewish
tradition, humanity is a partner with G o d in the ongoing act of
creation just as w e are G o d ' s partner in covenant. Each day challenges
us to make as m u c h right as w e can, "to repair the world in the image
of G o d ' s K i n g d o m " (Prayer Book, 'Afenu/Adoration), as both a
creative and covenantal act. Is there any w o n d e r then that the
c h a n g e d persons, A b r a h a m a n d Sarah, the covenant couple, will n o w
h a v e a child? Is there a n y other symbol o f a n e w creation as vivid as
birth? A n d the child's n a m e must signify all the j o y linked with new
h o p e s and n e w beginnings: Isaac, the o n e w h o will laugh.
In the light of these views, Maimonides's rule regarding a penitent
person is psychologically sound. H e wrote:
It is part of the way of penitence for the penitent to cry out before
God in tears and supplication, to perform acts of charity according to
89
his ability, to distance himself from the matter in which one sinned
and to change one's name . . . (Laws of Penitence 2:4).
T h e n e w n a m e of the penitent points to the totally n e w creation the

penitent has b e c o m e . T h e rending of covenantal bonds caused by the
disobedience of the sinner is repaired by repentance. In the Jewish
tradition even m o r e than that occurs. Repentance out of love turns
past faults into merits. T h e very reality of time and space is changed
and everything is created a n e w . "Yesterday the sinner was separated
from the G o d of Israel; h e prayed and was not answered and
performed c o m m a n d e d acts, a n d they were rejected. Today, the
penitent cleaves to G o d , prays and receives immediate response,
performs the c o m m a n d m e n t s , and is received with joy and pleasure"
(Laws of Penitence 7:7). Indeed, " o n e w h o changes his n a m e changes
his fortune," and the n e w n a m e is always a joyous o n e if the n e w path
chosen links o n e to G o d .
A s we read G e n . 17:15-19 w e recognize that the aged Abraham can
not believe in being created a n e w . His h u n d r e d years a n d the ninety
of Sarah weigh heavily o n him. T h e miracle o f daily re-creation, n e w
covenants, n e w n a m e s must compete with the reality of the years and
their pains. It will b e e n o u g h if Ishmael will live, says Abraham. But
G o d responds, " N a y , but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son!" (Gen.
17:19). W e , too, b e c o m e disillusionedsome would say "experi
e n c e d , " worldly-wiseand w e are willing to settle for what is. W e do
not share the vision of the world as our Partner sees it: n e w each day
and filled with opportunity, open to repair and perfection if we but
will and act as if it were s o .
This is w h y the covenant as it will be observed through all the
generations of Israel is sealed in Isaac's flesh: " A n d Abraham
circumcised his son Isaac w h e n h e was eight days old, as God had
c o m m a n d e d h i m " (Gen. 21:4, compare G e n . 17:12). Isaac, child o f
laughter, son of a new-old couple, n e w h o p e in the face of jaded
experience, is himself a n e w creation. S e v e n days must pass in his life
and in the life o f every Jewish male child before the covenant of
circumcision will b e observed. This signifies God's role in the creation
of the world w h i c h took seven days. Circumcision takes place o n the
eighth day as a sign of the h u m a n role in shaping n e w life and n e w
worlds (compare Kiddushin 30b). T h e m i n d and heart of a newborn
are a tabula rasa ready to be shaped and formed toward the making o f a
better world, toward striving for better values, toward bringing the
redemption. W h e n w e continue the covenant in our children's lives,
90
w e r e n e w in ourselves the c o m m i t m e n t s to hope for redemption. W e

begin again to work to fulfill that h o p e through lives w e would want
our children to model and reaffirm with their children. W e pass the
covenant from generation to generation.
A Jewish folk idea says that prior to birth an angel obliges the
child-to-be-born to swear that h e or she will b e c o m e a zaddik, a saintly
person, and not, G o d forbid, a rasha', an evil person. It is hard to keep
the oath. Life whittles away at our resolution. Creation and covenant
alike wear down. "Blessed is our G o d , Ruler of the World, w h o has
c o m m a n d e d that w e involve ourselves in the words of the T o r a h "
(Prayer Book, m o r n i n g service). W h e n w e fulfill that commandment,
then w e read of A b r a m s and Sarais turned into Abrahams and Sarahs,
and w e see h o w tired, worn-out lives b e c o m e n e w and laugh out of
doubt and into joy. W e see that as broken as life m a y m a k e us, turning
to our creator and our covenantal tasks renews, repairs, and, with
G o d ' s help, redeems.
W h o would have told A b r a m that Sarai would suckle children? No
one. But n o o n e would deny that A b r a h a m and Sarah, the changed
couple, did have a son. Countless generations have read their story. It
still beckons us to c h a n g e our visions and our styles, to believe in n e w
beginnings and c h a n g e d fortunes. It challenges u s to h o p e and act in
such a way that w e m a y all share in the j o y o f a redeemed creation.
EXODUS 20:1-17
T h e T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s , in H e b r e w the T e n Statements, are

central to both Judaism and Christianity. For Judaism, they represent
the beginning of revelation which would finally unfold into 613
covenantal responsibilities called mitzvot, c o m m a n d m e n t s . Indeed,
Saadyah Gaon, a tenth-century Jewish philosopher, and the great
book of Jewish mysticism, the Zohar, claim that all the command
m e n t s are contained in concise form in the T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s
revealed at Sinai. T h e s e rules represent the details of Jewish living and
cover the totality of life's activities. This system attempts to tie the
totality of h u m a n activity to G o d , in this m a n n e r to sanctify it, and,
thus, to infuse the totality of h u m a n experience with significance and
worth. T h e message the 613 c o m m a n d m e n t s seeks to convey is: there
is n o h u m a n act or relationship which is unimportant in the eyes of
G o d . Furthermore, there is n o realm of being which cannot become a
point of departure for a meeting with the divine. Yet, the Ten
C o m m a n d m e n t s contain the content of the theophany witnessed by
91
all Israel at M t . Sinai a n d therein lies their special place in Judaism. W e

shall, therefore, give attention to s o m e o f the T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s
individually.
"I a m the Eternal, your God, who took you

out of the land of Egypt." (Exod. 20:2)
It is the normal course of traditional Jewish thought to express itself

in c o m m u n i t y or group terms. "All Israel is responsible for o n e
a n o t h e r " (BT S h e b u c o t 39a) is typical of this pattern o f thought as is
the thoroughgoing use of " w e " throughout the liturgy. N o doubt it is
this tendency of thought that raised the question, " W h y were the T e n
C o m m a n d m e n t s s p o k e n b y G o d in the singular f o r m ? " (Pesikta
Rabbati, 21). M a n y answers have b e e n suggested, but o n e of the best
of t h e m is that at Sinai G o d appeared to each individual differently. T o
o n e , G o d s e e m e d to sit; to another, G o d s e e m e d to stand. Y e t another
perceived G o d as a y o u t h , while s o m e o n e else received the revelation
of G o d as an old m a n (Pesikta Rabbati, 21). This is not a claim that G o d
2
is a n y o n e o f t h e s e , but rather a statement about the n e e d o f people to
personalize their experience of G o d a n d Judaism's belief that G o d
agrees to such personalization.
This stance has m a d e Jewish thinking very uncomfortable about
"defining" G o d too closely. Indeed, it would b e considered arrogant
to try to d o s o . W h o are w e , m e r e mortals, to close the divine infinity
into m e a s u r e m e n t s w e h a v e set? H o w do w e dare tell others that our
vision of G o d is the only true vision? In this regard it is interesting h o w
R. A b r h a h a m b . David of Posquierres responded to Maimonides's
dogmatic statement that those w h o believed G o d has a s h a p e or form
of a n y sort were heretics (Maimonides's C o d e , Laws of Penitence,
3:7). H e stated:
Why does he call such a person a heretic? How many greater and
better persons than him [Maimonides] accepted such a notion
according to what they saw in biblical texts and even more so from
what they saw in some Jewish lore which confused their minds?
R. A b r a h a m did not believe in G o d ' s corporeality, as h e himself states,

but neither did h e believe that a n y o n e h a d the right to classify those
w h o did as heretics. T h e divine reality appeared to great and good
people in m a n y w a y s . It was unfair to characterize others' views a s
92
heresy w h e n the issue was each person's personalization of the O n e

w h o had taken him or h e r from Egypt.
This theological o p e n n e s s is crucial to true knowledge of G o d and to
true religiosity. It declares the " I shall b e what I shall b e " (Exod. 3:14)
of G o d to be true, and prevents it from becoming a caricature drawn
by s o m e authoritarian person with enough hubris to say, " G o d is what
I say G o d i s . " W h e n R. M e n d e l of Kotzk was asked what the true path
to G o d was, h e could only respond, " W h a t kind of G o d would God b e
if there was only one true path to H i m ? ! " In saying that h e spoke the
Jewish heart and mind. Indeed, he gave an entire address o n Jewish
dogmatic theology and declared that if o n e exists, its canons are small
indeed. T h e G o d w h o took Israel out of Egypt m a y have asked for
communal adherence to covenantal laws, but S h e or He addressed
each m a n and w o m a n according to his or her o w n needs and abilities.
The 613 c o m m a n d m e n t s m a y all b e Israel's responsibility, but the God
to w h o m their observance is the sign of loyalty is the G o d to w h o m
those w h o crossed the sea sang, "This is my G o d and I will extol h i m "
(Exod. 15:2). In that spirit, Judaism could allow debate even about the
proper way to observe the rules of the covenant declaring, " B o t h this
opinion and that are the words of the living G o d " (BT TEsrubin 13b).
"Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy."
O f all the institutions of Jewish life, the sabbath (Heb., shabbat)

stands out as o n e of the most central. It, along with circumcision, was
u n d e r constant attack throughout antiquity. It was as if the Hellenistic
world k n e w that the successful eradication of these observances
would signal the death of Jewish life and culture. W h y was life and
limb sacrificed to maintain sabbath observance? Wherein lies the
centrality of shabbat for the Jew? What about it is significant at the
universal level?
The word sabbath itself means cessation. In traditional Jewish practice
this meaning is lived out by a total cessation from any activity which will
bring about significant and enduring change in an object or en
vironment. For example, one may not plant something on shabbat
because that brings about changes in the seed or plant in a significant
and ultimately enduring way. T h e net result of such restriction is
detachment from the utilization and manipulation of one's external
world. O n e day a week that world is left to itself, in the state of being it
was when shabbat began at sunset on Friday. Only the saving of a life
will suspend this cessation of activity which constitutes the sabbath rest.
93
Jewish tradition holds that sabbath observance testifies to the fact

that G o d is the creator and ruler of the universe:
The five commandments (on the first tablet) parallel the five
commandments (on the second tablet).. . . It is written "Remember
the sabbath day to keep it holy" (Exod. 20:8) as the fourth
commandment. Parallel to it (as the eighth commandment) it is
written, " D o not bear false witness" (Exod. 20:16). This indicates
that anyone who desecrates the sabbath testifies falsely that God did
not create the world and rest on the seventh day. Conversely, those
who observe the sabbath testify that God did create the world and
rest on the seventh day . . . (Mekilta, Bahodesh, 8).
Cessation from creative work, from tampering with the world

around us, states tangibly our agreement that it is not totally ours, that
we are not the ultimate rulers over it. Six days w e manipulate it, shape
it, dominate it. O n the seventh, G o d asks us to return it to Him/Her.
By acceding to that request, we do testify that ultimately the "earth is
the Eternal's with the fullness thereof" (Ps. 24:1), and w e let go of it
and return it and ourselves to G o d .
Acknowledging the rights of the creator of the universe over that
which S h e or H e m a d e returns the s e n s e of being a creature to us. W e
begin to recognize that w e are one with all other created things before
God. W e all share in being the work of G o d ' s hands. This sense
proposes that w h e n w e return at sabbath's e n d to our work in and
with the world w e should return with a gentler, more respectful
attitude toward all of creation. O n shabbat the great and the lowly,
humanity and beast, master and slave are equalized in their position
before G o d w h o m a d e t h e m all (Exod. 20:10). Rabbinic Judaism
recognized e v e n the right of inanimate objects to " r e s t " on the sabbath
w h e n it restrained J e w s from using any tool for its normal work
purpose on the sabbath day (see B T Shabbat 18a). W e and all things
are partners in each other's existences, and all of our existences are
God's.
Sabbath also provides an opportunity to step back from molding
and shaping the world so that w e m a y just look at it. As w e take that
look w e can j u d g e from a bit of a distance, as an artist would, whether
w e like what w e have d o n e with our world during the past week, or
m o n t h , or year. W e can plan to do better, or differently, or, perhaps,
cease from doing a n y more. Cut off from direct and intense interaction
with the world outside of us by the sabbath rules governing
prohibited labor, w e are freed to turn to our internal worlds. W e are
94
granted time to tend to the world of h u m a n relationships as opposed

3
to the world of material relationships. W e can " r e s o u l . "
H o w the m o d e r n world needs sabbath! W e have polluted air and
water and earth because w e d e e m e d ourselves rulers of the earth
w h e n that title belongs only to G o d . W e have not taken the time to
learn that we are o n e with all created things, a n d to what pass has that
brought us? O u r failure to build rich inner worlds, filled with loving
care a n d a sense of a w e a n d partnership with each other a n d with
creation, has brought us to the edge of self-annihilation. W e do not
n e e d time "to kill." Rather, we n e e d time to stop a n d look inward and
out, a m o m e n t to pause. At the crossroad which sabbath provides
b e t w e e n w e e k and week, w e m a y s e e , as G o d did, what is good in our
creativity so w e may maximize it. O u r cessation from work can help us
plan sensibly for making our efforts produce life and j o y , not death
a n d destruction. W e are the rulers of creation, right d o w n to the very
atoms thereof. But do w e truly rule or d o our creations n o w rule us?
W h e n sabbath w a n e s , as a sign of re-entry into the workdays of the
w e e k , the J e w lights a candle of braided wax a n d wicks and recalls
h o w G o d created light on the first day. T h e candle is w o v e n a n d not of
one piece symbolizing h o w h u m a n creativity can b e a mix of good and
evil, a source of positive building and horrendous destruction. T h e
fire w e hold in our h a n d as the w e e k begins challenges us all with the
question of h o w w e will use creation's gifts: to light and w a r m , or to
burn and destroy, T h e six workdays teach us that w e are capable of
accomplishing anything our creative imaginations will. T h e seventh
day poses the question, " B u t should w e ? "
"You shall not murder."
T h e fact that J e w i s h tradition has developed continuously through

different eras a n d in a great variety of places has meant that it could
refine and redefine its biblical legacy in light of its n e w experiential
insights. The directions of the prohibitions o n murder a n d thievery,
elemental to the protection o f life, property, a n d c o m m u n a l order,
b e c a m e richer in meaning as Jewish life progressed. W h a t are simple
e n o u g h statements in their biblical locus developed subtle ethical
n u a n c e s which tell us something important about the Jewish
tradition's ethos.
Genesis already provides a theological grounding for the prohib
ition o n murder. It states that such an act should be punished by death
95
because humanity is created in the image of God (Gen. 9:6). Rabbinic

sources adopt the s a m e approach w h e n they state:
It is written, "I am the Eternal, your G o d " and over against this it is
written, "You shall not murder." Torah testifies that one who
murders is regarded as one who lessened the Image of the K i n g . . .
(Mekilta, Bahodesh, 5).
This concern for the value of a life because each life is unique, i.e.,
each h u m a n life is " o n e " just as G o d is " o n e , " m e a n i n g without peer
(compare Exod. 15:11), led to a deepening of the m e a n i n g of " Y o u
shall not m u r d e r . " Indeed, the sense of the value o f the individual
finally prompted the rabbinic legal tradition to re-evaluate the
question o f the m e a n i n g of capital punishment. This led to a change in
the sense of capital p u n i s h m e n t ' s purpose which, for the Bible, is
either retaliation, deterrent, o r the maintenance of an orderly society
(Lev. 24:17-22; Deut. 17:6-7, 12-13). For the rabbis, however, capital
punishment was part o f a program o f repentance. Violation of those
laws in the Torah which required the death penalty were sins needing
atonement. H e n c e , " t h o s e sentenced to death confess" (Mishnah,
Sanhedrin 6:2) because their death is their atonement and is
efficacious only w h e n accompanied b y penitence.
This n e w sense of what capital p u n i s h m e n t represented, as well as
further consideration of the concept of the image of G o d , pressed
s o m e rabbis toward the conclusion that capital punishment should b e
avoided even in cases w h e r e the Torah might require it. From their
perspective, the Torah could be construed to d e m a n d total certainty
that a crime carrying the death penalty was committed with criminal
intent and awareness of the penalty. Furthermore, the Torah's
concern for careful examination of witnesses in death penalty cases
(Deut. 19:18) could serve as the basis o f such meticulous scrutiny that
no two witnesses could produce equivalent evidence except in the
rarest cases. Both "strategies" were employed, and the end result is
found in a statement by R. Akiba, o n e of the greatest sages of rabbinic
Judaism (ca. 90-135): " H a d I b e e n a m e m b e r of the Court w h e n it was
e m p o w e r e d to i m p o s e the death penalty, n o person would have b e e n
put to d e a t h " (Mishnah, Makkot, 1:10).
T h e process w e have described does not abolish the Torah's law of
capital punishment. Given rabbinic theology, that could not happen.
Rather, s o m e rabbis interpreted certain requirements o f the Torah
stringently, for example, the laws of testimony, in order to make
96
capital punishment nearly impossible. B e h i n d this process, however,

stood the rabbinic sense of respect for G o d ' s image a n d the deeply felt
notion that spilling blood meant its diminution. That being settled,
m a n y rabbis recognized that they had to limit bloodshed whether
inflicted by vicious criminals or b y the court. It is not surprising that
Akiba, w h o said, " B e l o v e d is h u m a n k i n d because it has b e e n created
in the Divine I m a g e " (Abot 3:14), is foremost in his opposition to
capital punishment.
T h e development of ethical meaning for " Y o u shall not murder" did
not stop at the point of special regard for h u m a n life that w e have
seen. Rather the tradition m o v e s on to consider the emotional and
spiritual core of h u m a n life as an issue n o less significant than the
physical life of a person. T h u s the Talmud rules, " A n y o n e w h o
embarrasses o n e ' s fellow in public is as o n e w h o sheds b l o o d " ( B .
c
Mezi a, 58a). R. Nahman b. Isaac commented, "What has been said is
well said, for we have seen that the face of the embarrassed party
blanches." Hence, the act is considered a form of bloodshed.
At a more philosophical level, however, the act of denigrating and
embarrassing another shares with murder the characteristic of defacing and
rninimizing the divine image. If one considered the true value of each
person granted by his or her creation in God's image, one would perforce
have to refrain from belittling one's fellow. As a hassidic bon mot puts it,
"Which is greater, a sin against God or a sin against man? Certainly a sin
against man, for that is a sin against the Divine Image as well!"
Other Jewish folk traditions realize the notion of the divine image in
Jewish life. In counting toward the quorum of ten needed for communal
prayer, the traditional practice is to use the ten Hebrew words of Ps. 28:9
for the count. Eastern European Jews can be heard to count people using
the Yiddishism "nisht eins," "not o n e . " These circumlocutions indicate
the deep-seated unwillingness to reduce a human being created in God's
image to a number. It is this ethic which impels the "holy society" which
buries the dead to address even a corpse wth a plea for forgiveness if,
perchance, the preparations for burial have been done without
appropriate sensitivity toward the dignity and privacy due a human
being. In death, as in life, a person remains what he or she was, the
dwelling place of God's image which endures forever.
This is the ethical sensitivity which characterizes the best in Jewish
traditional thought. It is a sensitivity desperately needed in an era when
the value of each person is questioned and frequently eroded by
97
m a n y processes of dehumanization. Care, humanity, and a zealous

protection of the dignity of each individual are the only guarantees of
our ultimate worth. W e are naked and unprotected, w e a k and strong
alike, w h e n w e sacrifice even o n e person's uniqueness and value.
T h o s e w h o were reduced to n u m b e r s , and then to ashes, testify that
this is so. W e are citizens of a century w h o s e ideologies and
technologies must serve as a warning to listen diligently to their
testimony. " Y o u shall not murder"not with w e a p o n s , nor with
your tongue, nor with apathy toward the root of all h u m a n dignity,
the image of G o d in each person.
JEREMIAH 31:31-34
Advent for the Christian community celebrates a relived memory

and a h o p e . It represents four w e e k s of anticipating the birth of Jesus
as a retrospective event and as a prospective, redeeming event for the
future. T h e Christian ecclesia's reading of Jeremiah 31:31-34 hears in
Jeremiah's words a prophecy which foresees events meaningful to the
experience of the church: a n e w covenant, the law written inwardly,
on the heart, and an age of forgiveness and direct knowledge o f G o d .
Jewish readers understood the chapter as a prophecy of an age to
come, the messianic era in which the land of Israel, the people of Israel,
and the God of Israel would be reunited covenantally forever. T h e
ultimate external, historical " p r o o f that all parties to the covenant were
fulfilling their covenantal responsibilities was the possession of the land
by a sovereign Jewish people. The messianic era dawned when that
reality could b e eternally guaranteed b y an ongoing fulfillment of the
Torah, the law, by the Jewish people with God's help.
Given the history o f Judaism and Christianity, J e w s did not hear in
this passage of Jeremiah what Christians do. This does not mean that
as that history unfolded J e w s were uninterested in or unaware of the
Christian comprehension of this passage. Indeed, R. David Kimchi, a
medieval Provencal Jewish grammarian and commentator, com
mented directly to the Christian understanding of this text, especially
regarding the " n e w c o v e n a n t " section of it. Kimchi writes:
The new aspect of the covenant (described in Jeremiah 31:32) is that

it shall be upheld and never be broken (by Israel) as was the Sinaitic
covenant which God made with Israel. One who says that the
Prophet foresaw a new Torah to come, a Torah unlike the one given
98
What is meant by "not according to the covenant I made with their

fathers" is that they broke it. The " n e w " covenant will not be broken
because " I will put my law (Heb., Torah) in their inward parts, and in
their heart will I write i t / ' that it shall not be forgotten by them
forever.. . . Hence, the renewal of the covenant is merely its eternal
maintenance.
And behold, Malachi, the last of the prophets, in his closing
words states "Remember ye the law of Moses My servant, which I
commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and
ordinances." Certainly that passage refers to a future time, as
Malachi closed, "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet, etc."
Hence, there will never be a new Torah or covenant save the one
arranged at Sinai.
I have put all this forward in order to make it obvious that the issue
of Jewish-Christian relationships, especially at the religious and
theological level, is still an issue of texts and contexts. While w e often
read a shared literature, the H e b r e w Bible, what w e see and hear there
is conditioned by what our particular faiths have taught us to expect to
find. Inevitably if w e are to remain loyal to our faithsand here I
m e a n also the inner faith each of us has in our particular system of
religionwe will continue to hear G o d ' s W o r d differently. T h e
question this raises about the m e a n i n g of interfaith dialogue is large.
W h a t purpose does it serve? D o n ' t the s a m e essential differences
persist along with their inevitable polemical appendages?
The answer to the last question is yes if one assumes that the function
of dialogue is the creation of unified religious thinking and community.
That assumption means, at least to me, that all the dialogical partners
are on a gentlebut seriousconversionary mission. It is hard for me to
conceive that those w h o love and have rooted faith in their particular
traditions would even enter dialogue settings if that was dialogue's
manifest purpose. Indeed, some people do not join interreligious
dialogue because that is precisely their sense of dialogue's function!
If religious unity is not what dialogue is about, then what is it about?
Here I can only speak for myself. For m e , the h o p e s placed in
dialogues with other religious groups besides m y ownand
sometimes even in dialogues within m y o w n faith communityare
best illustrated by a short hassidic interpretation o f the first blessing of
the central prayer of the Jewish liturgy. T h e prayer begins, "Blessed
are Y o u , our G o d and G o d of our fathers, the G o d o f Abraham, the
G o d of Isaac, and the G o d of J a c o b . " T h e hassidim said, " W h y the
99
repetition? Say simply 'the G o d of A b r a h a m , Isaac, a n d J a c o b / T h e

prayer, however, must call G o d the G o d o f each patriarch separately
because their experiences of the Eternal O n e were each different/'
Dialogue's function, for m e , is not the eradication of different ways
to G o d or experiences o f Him/Her, but a stirring opportunity to clarify
and rejuvenate o n e ' s o w n "standing before G o d " in a framework
which validates the rousing finale of Psalms, "Everything that hath
breath shall praise the Eternal" (Ps. 150:6). In dialogue w e see o n e
another taking our faith, our religious heritages, and our beliefs
seriously. Dialogue cannot take place a m o n g "devil's advocates." It
can only occur b e t w e e n people with a passion for the particular and a
will to share the insights particular " w a y s to G o d " offer; but those
" w a y s " must really be their ways.
Dialogue is a process in which, for all our differences, w e try to
understand a n d develop sensitivities. It is a m e a n s to get b e y o n d
stereotypes which proclaim Christians cruel Crusaders a n d Jews a n d
others aspiritual infidels. It is a situation in which w e come to
recognize that " t h o s e others really m e a n it" in terms o f their faith
c o m m i t m e n t s , just as " w e " do. B e c a u s e that is so, w e b e c o m e more
compassionate a n d c o m p r e h e n d i n g regarding our differences,
though w e m a y n e v e r give t h e m up.
T h e very term " d i a l o g u e " a s s u m e s two voices. Differences make
two voices, or m o r e , possible. O n c e w e value the people w e talk with,
w e get b e y o n d trying to swallow t h e m u p into unrelieved sameness.
W e b e h a v e as G o d did at the time of creationwe create diversity a n d
proclaim it "very g o o d . "
Jeremiah dreamed of an age w h e r e people would cease teaching
each other " k n o w the L o r d " in the voice of c o m m a n d a n d
domination. H e foresaw a time w h e n all would k n o w G o d , the great
and the small, each in their o w n way. Perhaps, w e have a chance to
help speed the fulfillment of that vision by open, sensitive,
nonmanipulative, a n d pluralistic dialogue.
NOTES
1. Jewish tradition teaches us that all of humanity is linked to God through the Noahidic
covenant, which obliges mankind to seven commandments regarding religion, societal
order, sexual morality, and kindness to animals.
2. The quotation from Pesikta Rabbati ends as follows: "If a heretic should say to you,
'There are two gods,' respond thus, 'He is the God who revealed Himself at the Red Sea; He
is the same God who appeared at Sinai.' "
3. The word wa-yinnafash in Hebrew is rendered as "and He rested." However, it is related
to the Hebrew word nefesh, soul, and could be translated "and He was souled."
100
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
A GUIDE TO SOME SOURCES OF JEWISH THOUGHT
Classics of Jewish Law
Mishnah, edited and translated by Philip Blackman, New York: Judaica Press, 1964, 7
volumes. The work is the earliest collection (ca. 200) of rabbinic law which covers both civil
and religious legislation in Judaism.
The Talmud (referred to in the article as BT, Babylonian Talmud), edited by Isadore
Epstein, London: Soncino, 37 volumes. The Talmud is the great compendium of law and
lore which has generated most of traditional Jewish thought and literature. It developed
over the 3-7th centuries.
Classical Homiletic Sources
Mekilta, translated by Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1949,

3 volumes. An early legal and homiletical work on the Book of Exodus. Other such works
exist for Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, but, unfortunately, are not translated into
English.
Midrash Rabbah, edited and translated by H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, London:
Soncino, 1977, 5 volumes. Short homiletical sources arranged verse by verse for the entire
Pentateuch.
Pesikta Rabbati, translated by William G. Braude, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.
Homiletical discourses for feasts, fasts, and special sabbaths.
Classics of Jewish Mysticism and Hassidism
Zohar (The Book of Splendor), translated by Harry Sperling and Maurice Simon, London:
Soncino, 1931-34, 5 volumes. A Jewish mystical commentary and interpretation of the
Pentateuch. Attributed to an early Jewish teacher, R. Simeon b. Yohai, late second century.
Actually written by Moses de Leon, 13th century, in Spain.
Souls on Fire, Elie Wiesel, New York: Random House, 1972. Portraits and stories by the
great hassidic teachers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Hassidism was an
emotional and charismatic renewal of Judaism based on many of the teachings of Jewish
mysticism. It began in the mid-eighteenth century.
Tales of the Hassidim, MartinBuber, New York: Schocken Books, 1971. Buber's biographical
introductions and presentation of the tales of the Early Masters and Later Masters of the
Hasidic movement is a classic, though Buber's interpretation of the tales is selective. A rich
and beautiful resource.
Classical Jewish Philosophical Works
The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Saadyah Gaon, translated by Samuel Rosenblatt, New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1948. A tenth-century scholar's treatment of the major
theological and philosophical issues of Judaism and its doctrines.
101
The Guide of the Perplexed, Moses Maimonides, translated by Shlomo Pines, Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1963, 2 volumes. The great philosophical Jewish response to
medieval Aristotelian thought. The work is one of the basic philosophical texts of Judaism. It
generated philosophical debate, controversy, and interpretation for centuries after its
publication.
Some Contemporary Jewish Homiletical Resources
Meditations on the Torah, B. S. Jacobson, Tel Aviv: Sinai, 1956. A thematic analysis of
significant themes in the weekly lectionary portion of the Pentateuch.
Studies in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Nehama Leibowitz,
translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1958-, 5 volumes. A
presentation of major exegetical themes, traditional and modern, for each of the weekly
Pentateuchal readings by the foremost living authority on Jewish biblical commentary.
Sermon collections and manuals are published by the rabbinic organizations of the three
major Jewish religious groups in the United States. These may be obtained from the Central
Conference of American Rabbis (Reform); Rabbinic Assembly of America (Conservative);
and Rabbinic Council of America (Orthodox). The organizational offices of each group are in
New York City.
Contemporary Jewish Philosophies, William E. Kaufman, Reconstructionist Press, 1976, and
Faith and Reason, Samuel Bergman, translated by Alfred Jospe, Washington, D.C.: B'nai
B'rith Hillel Foundation, 1961. Both volumes introduce the major Jewish thinkers of the late
nineteenth and the twentieth centuries whose impact is most strongly felt today in the
contemporary Jewish community. Though it is best to read each of these thinkers'
philosophies/theologies independently, these two works accurately identify the "heroes" in
the field. They also provide a synopsis of the thinkers' views and some critique.
102
INDEX TO VOLUME FOUR
Authors
Atkinson, Clarissa W., 1:101-8 McClain, William B . , 1:96-100

Mathews, James K., 1:91-95
Ball-Kilbourne, Gary L., 1:43-54
Burtner, Robert W., 1:22-30 Newsom, Carol A., 3:40-53
Pawlikowski, John T., 4:23-36

Chandler, Ralph Clark, 2:8-27
Potthoff, Harvey H., 76-102
Chernick, Michael, 4:82-100
Cole, Charles E . , 1:3-9, 2:3-7, 3:3-8, Richey, Russell R., 1:31-42
4:3
Collins, Adela Yarbro, 3:69-84 Schoneveld, J . (Coos), 4:52-63
Stanley, T. L., 2:28-43
Eckardt, A. Roy, consulting editor,
number 4, winter Tilson, Everett, 1:55-90
Trotter, Mark, 3:85-108
Fleischner, Eva, 4:64-81 Tucker, Gene, consulting editor,
number 3, fall
Geyer, Alan, 2:66-75 Tyson, John R., 1:9-21
Goodhue, Tom, 2:57-65
Greenberg, Irving, 4:4-22 Weber, Paul J . , 2:28-43
Guth, James L., 2:44-56 White, James F . , editor and author
of introduction to "John Wes
Hanson, Paul D., 3:23-39 ley's Sunday Service of the
Methodists in North America,"
Jennings, Theodore W,, Jr., 3:54-68 Methodist Bicentennial Com
Jewett, Robert, 3:9-22 memorative Reprint, published
John-Charles, 2:103-8 at time of number 2, spring, in
separate volume.
Lister, Douglas, 1:9-21 Williamson, Clark M., 4:37-51
Titles
"Apocalyptic and Contemporary Theology," 3:54-68

"Apocalyptic Consciousness," 3:23-39
"Black People in United Methodism: Remnant or Residue?" 1:96-100
103
"Charles Wesley, Pastor: A Glimpse inside His Shorthand Journal,"

1:9-21
"Christian as Steward in J o h n W e s l e y ' s Theological E t h i c s , " 1:43-54
" C h u r c h e s and Peacemaking in 1 9 8 4 , " 2:66-75
" C o m i n g to T e r m s with the D o o m B o o m , " 3:9-22
" C o u n t i n g , " 2:3-7
" D o m Gregory Due's The Shape of the Liturgy/' 2:103-8
"Ecclesial Sensibilities in Nineteenth-Century American Method
i s m , " 1:31-42
"Education of the Christian Right: T h e C a s e of the Southern Baptist
C l e r g y , " 2:44-56
" H e s c h e l " s Significance for Jewish-Christian Relations," 4:64-81
"Homiletical Resources: Epistle Readings for the Season after
P e n t e c o s t , " 3:85-108
"Homiletical Resources for the S e a s o n after Pentecost," 2:76-102
"Homiletical Resources from the Hebrew Bible for L e n t , " 4:82-100
"Homiletical Resources: Interpretation of Old Testament Readings for
Easter," 1:55-90
"It Never Got M u c h Better than T h i s , " 1:3-8
"Jewish ' N o ' to Jesus and the Christian ' Y e s ' to the J e w s , " 4:52-63
" J e w s and Christians: T h e Contemporary D i a l o g u e , " 4:123-36
" J o h n Wesley in Switzerland," 1:22-30
John Wesley's Sunday Service, special volume published with n u m b e r 2
" M o s t Pressing Issue before the C h u r c h , " 1:91-95
" N e w Testament Reconsidered: Recent Post-Holocaust Scholarship,"
4:37-51
"Past as Revelation: History in Apocalyptic Literature," 3:40-53
" P o w e r and Performance of Religious Interest G r o u p s , " 2:28-43
"Questionable Pursuits," 3:3-8
"Relationship of Judaism and Christianity: Toward a N e w Organic
M o d e l , " 4:4-22
" S h a m e , " 2:57-65
"Shape of the Liturgy," 2:103-8
" ' W h a t the Spirit Says to the Churches': Preaching the Apocalypse,"
3:69-84
" W h e n an Editor N e e d s an Editor," 4:3
" W i c k e d Shall Not Bear Rule: T h e Fundamentalist Heritage of the
N e w Religious R i g h t , " 2:8-27
" W o m e n a n d Religion" (reviews), 1:101-8
104
INDEX
Major Subjects
Altizer, Thomas J. J. 3:65-67

Anti-Judaism, 4:37, 39, 56-57
Anti-Semitism, 4:23, 39, 49, 75
Apocalypticismsee fall, number 3.
Bangs, Nathan, 1:33-37

Blacks, 1:96-100
Book reviews, 1:101-8, 2:103-8
Chardin, Teilhard de, 3:64-65

Crisis theology, 3:57-59
Daniel, Book of, 3:47-50, 82

Disarmament, 2:66-75
Dix, Dom Gregory (review), 1:103-8
Easter, homiletical resources for, 1:55-90

Electronic church, 2:16-20
Enoch, First Book of, 3:43-47
Falwell, Jerry, 2:8-27 passim

Fundamentalism, 2:8-27 passim
Heschel, Abraham Joshua, 4:64-81
Holocaust, 4:4-5, 8, 19-21, 32, 34-35, 37, 52-54, 71-74, 76
Israel, as contemporary nation, 4:21, 31-34, 38, 55, 60
Jewish-Christian relationssee winter, number 4.
Keller, Rosemary S. (review), 1:101-8

Lent, homiletical resources for, 4:82-102
Liberation theology, 3:62-64
Lindsey, Hal, 3:10, 15-17, 40-42
Midrash, 4:57, 82-83 (Chernick)

Millennialism, 3:9-22
Moral Majority, 2:8-27 passim, 2:44-56 passim
Parables, 2:76-102
Pentecost, homiletical resources for, 2:76-102, 3:85-108
Pharisees, 4:28-31, 39-40, 41-44, 58-59
105
Politics, and 1984 election, 2:66-75; and lobbying, 3:28-43; and theology,
3:60-62
Postmillennialism, 3:11-12
Premillenialism, 2:10-12, 3:11
Queen, Louise L. (review), 1:101-8
Rabbi, as central Judaic figure, 4:30

Religious interest groups, 2:28-43
Revelation, Book of, 3:69-84
Ruether, Rosemary R. (review), 1:101-8; 4:56
Stevens, Abel, 1:38-39

Stewardship, 1:43-54
Supersessionism, 4:10-11, 49, 61
Synagogue, as different from temple, 4:30-31
Talmud, 4:82-102 passim

Theology of history (Wolfhart Pannenberg), 3:59-60
Thomas, Hilah F. (review), 1:101-8
Vatican II, A:75~77
War, 1:91-95
Weidman, Judith L. (review), 1:101-8
Weiss, Johannes, 3:55-56
Wesley, Charles, 1:9-21
Wesley, John, 1:9-21, 43-54; special volume published with number 2
Women, ministry of (reviews), 1:101-8
106
Coming in QR
S p r i n g 1985
Faith Without Foundations

Jay McDaniel
T h e Church and the Sexual Revolution

Raymond /. Lawrence
Personal LibraryPublic Resource

Dale Goldsmith
N e w Directions for the Iona C o m m u n i t y

Robert Gustafson
D o Something Pastoral!
David G. Hawkins
Recent Books and Emerging Issues

in the Study of Apocalyptic
John G. Gammie
Homiletical Resources: Epistle Lections for Pentecost

David Watson
Quarterly Review is indexed in Religion Index One: Periodicals (American Theological

Library Assoc. Indexes, Chicago, Illinois).
Issues of Quarterly Review are available on microfilm and microfiche. For those desiring
this service, order from:
University Microfilms International
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
Quarterly Review is a publication of The United Methodist Publishing
House and the United Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry.

Winter 1984-1985 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources For Ministry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Winter 1984-1985 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources For Ministry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL. 4, NO.

FOCUS O N JEWISH-CHRISTIAN RELATIONS

The Relationship of Judaism and Christianity

Jews and Christians

Post-Holocaust New Testament Scholarship

The Jewish " N o " to Jesus and the Christian

Heschel's Significance for Jewish-Christian

Homiletical Resources from the Hebrew Bible for Lent

A publication of The United Methodist Publishing House

Editorial Director, Ronald P. Patterson

Quarterly Review (ISSN 0270-9287) provides continuing education resources for

Jews and Christians: T h e C o n t e m p o r a r y Dialogue

The N e w Testament Reconsidered: Recent Post-Holocaust Scholarship

T h e J e w i s h " N o " to J e s u s a n d the C h r i s t i a n " Y e s " to J e w s

H e s c h e l ' s Significance for J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n Relations

H o m i l e t i c a l R e s o u r c e s from the H e b r e w Bible for L e n t

W h e n an Editor Needs an Editor

W h e n you look for a consulting editor, you normally seek an expert

" T h i s paper is an attempt to ask Jew9 and J e w i s h thinkers

This paper does not focus o n the Holocaust but in part it is a

affirmative model of Christianity, o n e that appreciates Christian

THE SCRIPTURAL MODEL

Judaism is a religion of redemption. T h e fundamental teaching of

those w h o have died will come to life. T h e n all will k n o w that

JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

In light of all this, to be a faithful J e w is to look forward to further

will illuminate the covenantal way a n d guide it forward. W h e n should

As long as Jewry is generating messiahs, it is faithful to its

further event, o n e they had not anticipated at all; namely, the

the redemption is b e y o n d history. That j u d g m e n t generated a

In short, the classic Christian interpretation that Chris

classic Christian interpretation that Christianity has superseded

conclusion itself was devastating for future Jewish-Christian rela

redemption, Christianity has brought a whole n e w s u m of evil a n d

greater justice to Jesus b e c a u s e they were surrounded b y an enemy

Out of defensiveness, the rabbis confused a "failed"

Out of defensiveness, the rabbis confused a "failed" messiah (which

achievements. This concept of a "failed" but true messiah is found in a

T h e Christians reacted to the destruction as the best proof that the

In " h i d i n g , " divine was calling on Israel to discern the divine,

claimed. Rather, Christianity is a commentary on the original Exodus,

overcome the dismissals and divisiveness which w e a k e n the role of

T h e history which both religions denied in order to claim their own

activities are where G o d is most present. W h e n G o d is most hidden,

The question is not: Where was God during the

T h e real question is: W h a t was G o d ' s message w h e n G o d did n o t .

T h e n e w h u m a n responsibility level implies that the events of our

m o v e m e n t is toward learning and understanding as against hierarchy

T h e age o f proselytizing is over; the age o f dialogue has

John T. Pawlikowski, O.S.M., is professor of theology at the Catholic Theological Union in

A m o n g those Christians who have been touched by the dialogue

remain profoundly tainted in their outlook on the Jewish people b y

Many Christians still see Jesus as standing alone against the

point well s o m e years ago w h e n he wrote, " T h e symbol of the

T h e Jewish historian Ellis Rivkin has brought out as well as anyone

The time has come to eliminate the term "Old Testament"

J e s u s ' executioners, the majority of the Jewish population, insists

these pre-Christian books are inferior a n d outdated in their religious

The period 150 B.C.E. to C.E. 50 was not altogether sterile

develop into an attitude that sees postbiblical Jewish religious

Central to the Pharisee challenge to the established form of Judaism

was the replacement of the temple as the central religious institution