Non-violent protest and Israelology confusion
I don't think I've posted on the Israel question before, partly because I recognize the sensitivity of the topic, partly because there's lots of great conversation happening on the subject over at Boxologies, but mostly because I haven't the foggiest what I think about the whole deal.I've been chatting to a few people lately and I think I have the beginnings of a trajectory of thought. Allow me to share some fragmentary thoughts...
I don't buy 'Replacement' (or 'Covenant') theology. Nor do I buy Dispensationalism either [sorry for the theology speak - don't want to go into detail about these positions too much]. I've been looking for a third way.
After many conversations throwing Bible texts around, I started asking the question from a theological viewpoint. If there is a future for the Jews, what would it look like? Certainly it'd be part of God's bigger dreams for all creation - dreams for its total restoration.
Now, (and bear with me on this one) I am reasonably convinced there is a place for the Jewish people in that disputed piece of land but if that is the case, is the only option the violent expulsion of non-Jews/land-grabbing/sabre-rattling (with reactive violent anti-Semitism on the other side of that coin)? What if this 'possessing of the land' looked less like military and political conquest and more like non-violent, turning-the-other-cheek, suffering servant victory? (after all, the suffering servant imagery in Isaiah is already claimed by the Jews). What if, instead of reacting to attack with retaliation, Israel unilaterally responded by refusing to get revenge?
I'm not being idealistic (well, maybe I am, but there's a real hope too). The kind of non-violent reform this suggests may take generations to have an effect. Maybe it would endeer the international community to the case of Israel. Maybe not. Maybe it won't work in the way we expect. Maybe the 'possessing of the land' would actually look like its loss. Maybe it'll look like failure. But then again, so did the cross - and that was a victory through self-surrender second to none. Perhaps there's a political model in the cross that we've not seen in action on a national scale before. Not by might, not by power but by the Spirit of God...
This is political power that looks like weakness (and a tough manifesto to get elected on - but that's another story). But it's cruciform. It's a suffering servant mentality, and one that can effect a real victory in surprising ways, as proven by Luther King, Gandhi, Mandela, the students of Tianamen Square...
In this way, they can be a living picture of the reconciliation God dreams of for all creation - every person and every chunk of land. The New Jerusalem needn't be without a shadow in the present one.
Thoughts?
posted by Jamie at Monday, September 04, 2006
12 Comments:
Hey Jamie, I think you would really enjoy Volf's Exclusion and Embrace.
Part of what compounds the problem, from a Christian perspective (which is unique from a Jewish perspective) is that most Christians advocating Jewish land rights have an ulterior motive. They see this as an eschatological step towards their goals of "bringing Jesus back". This is far from a real concern for the Jewish people, which seems more where your heart is.
This is one of those cases where I must admit to being a pessimist. The Middle East is just so volatile and as long as violence is an option on the table there will be no lasting peace.
Yeah, Volf has a lot to say that can inform us here. Have read parts of Exclusion and Embrace. Need to revisit it I think - thanks for the reminder.
Hey bro. I like your idea - as you know, I don't find it sits well with God's overarching redemptive plan, but it doesn't conflict with it. I'll leave the constraints of realpolitik to another blog!
The reason I resent the 'Replacement Theology' label - used mostly as a pejorative term - is that my understanding of Christ's mission is extending the scope of the covenant to Gentiles, and extending the covenanted land to the ends of the earth. Not replacing the Jews or a slither of the Middle East, but universalising them.
However, right now, I would certainly settle for a nation state Israel that saw itself in your suggested terms!
Cheers for the comments mate. I'll concede on the label for the theology - but in the absence of a better one... (in some flavours of this theological position, though, "replacement" is probably the mot juste)
What do you mean by this approach not sitting well with God's "overarching redemptive plan"? In what sense doesn't it fit?
In terms of Christ being at the centre of it. It seems to add a subplot where I don't think there is one. E.g., if we believe that Jesus is the 'fulfilment' of the servant passages, viewed originally as pertaining to Israel, then we are claiming that Jesus is the embodiment of Israel, and that, therefore, through him, Israel fulfils perfectly its calling to be a blessing to the nations.
The metaphor of Gentiles being grafted on to an existing vine makes sense in this light. It makes no sense if there are two vines.
Cheers for the clarification Box. I think I get what you're saying.
I'm not sure I see a subplot in this idea - I see the main plot of the Missio Dei as being the restoration of all things, in which Israel plays a part. Christ is central in this restoration - that he may be "all in all".
Jesus is, of course, the fulfilment of the servant songs, but that doesn't mean he is the only fulfilment. The Bible is full of this type of multiple (increasing) fulfilments. It's a question of what "fulfilment" means. As the perfect type of Israel, Jesus can act as a paradigm for them (and us) still - bringing numerous 'fulfilments' of the call to be a servant and a blessing to all nations.
Because Jesus is the perfect type of Israel does not mean that further application of the suffering servant metaphor to the nation of Israel is unwarranted.
Jesus can be the Image of Israel, and still call the nation of Israel to live in the Image of Christ. He is calling them to be the inclusive, cruciform nation God intended. This is the same call to every nation, of course (since the Gentiles are grafted in to the same vine) but may well have a specific application to Israel as a chosen people.
In answer to your second point, I'm not sure Israel has totally fulfilled its calling to be a blessing to the nations - certainly Christ ushered in that blessing, but that doesn't mean that Israel should stop being a blessing (again a question of multiple fulfilments). And Christ shows how - the way of the suffering servant.
So as far as I can see, it fits well with salvation history - the trajectory seems the same, participation in God's mission of reconciliation for the world.
"It's a question of what 'fulfilment' means."
There's some discussion of this over on Chrisendom.
If you are filling something up, you don't take out what was there already, but add to it. This sounds a little too glib a response, I know, but actually has good roots in the Greek verb.
"Jesus is, of course, the fulfilment of the servant songs, but that doesn't mean he is the only fulfilment."
This is kind of my point. But the punctuation of history with Christ, and the refinement of Israel (Romans, Galatians, Hebrews) in the NT suggests that it is our calling, as grafts onto the Israel vine, to emulate Christ's paradigm.
Again, the point being that Christ IS Israel in its fullness, and we (Jews and Gentiles) are a 'shadow' of him.
I still don't see what role there is for that polity between Eilat and disputed territory in the North in all of this. The question here being, how can a nation that no more recognises Jesus as Messiah than any other, reflect, even poorly, Jesus' paradigmatic blessing to all nations?
To attribute a role to it would indeed fly in the face of the rest of the narrative, which was always working to the 'all nations', as finally proclaimed in the Great Commission.
"how can a nation that no more recognises Jesus as Messiah than any other, reflect, even poorly, Jesus' paradigmatic blessing to all nations"
Is it a question of 'believe and then act' or can one act in order to grow a belief? Does mental assent/faith have to precede action (in our personal lives or in Israeli international policy?) It seems to me that the disciples were called to follow in the ways of Jesus before they understood who he was. That came later, as they followed.
To properly be a blessing to all nations Israel needs to live in the way of Jesus Christ. Properly recognising him is of course central to that, but that doesn't mean they can't be Jesus-like without recognising him. Hopefully, by learning to follow him and live Kingdom of God lives (individually and as a nation) the Jews will learn who it is they are following - like the disciples did.
I recognise that the belief in a specific role for the nation of Israel is not crucial for this paradigm to work, but I still believe they have one. We are grafted on, of course, but the original vine remains. At the moment, of course, they (largely) aren't behaving like the original vine.
I don't agree that this "flies in the face of the rest of the narrative". The nation of Israel being a blessing to all nations was part of God's narrative from its inception. I don't think this stopped with Christ (although he shows us how they are to be that blessing).
I guess my central point is that, in all the arguing about whether or not they have a right to the land, and discussions of that nature, we have lost sight of what the nation of Israel should look like. If, instead of asking "does Israel have a right to the land?" we asked the question "what kind of foreign policy would a suffering-servant, kenotic [self-surrendering, cf. Phil 2:7] Israel produce?" we might have a better world, whether or not their role is a specific one or the same as any nation. It'd be nice for them to take the lead though, given the current climate.
I have to say, I'm increasingly unconvinced.
"We are grafted on, of course, but the original vine remains. At the moment, of course, they (largely) aren't behaving like the original vine."
Not wishing to get tied up in a metaphor, in what sense does the original vine remain? The roots, in Abraham, remain; the historical Jewish branches remain; but those Jewish branches which, before and after Christ, have rejected God's covenant seal (Jesus), have indeed been cut off. I think that's clear in scripture. As a bonus, some Gentile branches (with us right at the end) have be grafted on.
You are really suggesting that there is a role for those branches that have been cut off.
Yep, that's exactly what I am suggesting. Romans 11 says that if they do not persist in unbelief (the greek is more than mere lack of mental assent but also has an element of poor praxis - more like "faithlessness") the natural branches will be grafted in again; and all the more easily because they are the natural ones.
It seems to me that the prospect of fullness and recovery of Israel runs through this whole passage. What I don't buy is the dispensational interpretation of this.
I wonder whether right praxis/belief about Messiah could permeate Israel and result in a Christ-like foreign policy. As I mentioned at the top of this discussion, this might result in a "fulness" (Rom 11:12) that isn't political conquest but servanthood, suffering and apparent defeat; but ultimately one that brings "greater riches" to the world.
Ok, so a nationally-proclaimed right praxis/belief regarding the Messiah, is a prerequisite for the Christ-like foreign policy that would be a blessing to the nations?
Then perhaps I would agree - but this would require a wholesale repentance from Israeli national myths, which are steeped in a slightly repellent militarism...
Ooh, I think I'm starting to like your thinking! Let's see how it all unfolds.
Post a Comment
<< Home