St Francis Magazine No.

3 (December 2005)

Dr. Bernhard Reitsma - dr.BernhardReitsma@hotmail.com

This article was first published in the magazine Theological Review volume XXVI, No. 1 (April 2005) of the
Near East School of Theology (NEST) in Beirut (Lebanon). It was published here with permission.

I. Introduction
In 1995 a consultation was held between the MECC and its Dutch Counterpart, the Council of
Churches in the Netherlands. It was the second in a series of three that discussed the different
interpretations that exist in the Middle East and the Netherlands concerning the relation
between the Church and the Jewish People. Mitri Raheb, outstanding theologian and Lutheran
Pastor in Bethlehem, asked the Dutch delegation why in the Netherlands they stressed the
Jewishness of Jesus so heavily. This question determined a substantial part of the discussions
during the third consultation in 1998 in Amman. Of course, the Dutch delegation posed a
counter question: ‘What does it mean for you in the Middle East, that Jesus was a Jew?1
Though the different views were not simply divided along delegation lines, it is obvious
that the whole issue is approached differently in the Middle East than in Europe. The Dutch
have an almost natural sympathy for the State of Israel, because it survived – as it is perceived
– the tidal wave of Arab force; it reminds the small Dutch nation of its own struggle for
survival, especially against the powers of the sea. The miracle of this State is often perceived
as a Divine intervention. This sympathy is further strengthened by the feelings of guilt that are
haunting the Dutch, because of the events of the Second World War Especially Christians still
try to cope with the fact that ages of Western Christian anti-Semitism have paved the way for
something so horrible (and essentially anti-Christian) as the Holocaust. Because of this
sympathy, Israel is first of all seen as the land of Jesus. Many people would like to visit this
idealized Holy Land to get in touch with the roots of their faith.
For Christians in the Middle East the situation is completely different. The so called
‘miracle’ of the State of Israel for them is more like a disaster (the ‘Naqbeh’). Israel is
perceived as the last remnant of colonialism2 that poses a continuous threat to peace and
stability in the region. Talking about the Jewishness of Jesus always reminds Arab Christians
of Jews that are involved in acts of war and aggression and it raises the question whether
Jesus is a Jew like that? Is He justifying the presence and the acts of the Jewish State?
Here, I would like to at the theological implications of the Jewishness of Jesus. How
important is it theologically?3 Is the Jewishness of Jesus just ‘relevant’ to our faith, or is it
‘essential’? In other words, do we have to acknowledge the Jewishness of Jesus simply in
order to understand the New Testament and the roots of the Christians faith, since first

1
Cf. M. Raheb, “Ecumenical-Theological Conversations on the Church and the Jewish People: Continuity and
Discontinuity”, Oegstgeest, August 31- September 2 1995 (Minutes prepared by Tirza Visser and Janneke
Houdijk of the CCN, p. 17, 18. Cf. D. C. Mulder, “Christians, Jews and Muslims. An Ecumenical-Theological
Conversation (I)”, in: IRM 89 (no. 352, 2000), pp. 99-104, p. 103.
2
Cf. E. Said, The Question of Palestine, London 1981 p. 69.
3
In New Testament research the Jewishness of Jesus is an important topic, cf. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the
Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 2 (London: SPCK, 1996), part 1, but it is much
more difficult to outline the meaning of the Jewishness for Christian Theology.
St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 1
www.stfrancismagazine.info - www.interserve.org - www.arabvision.org
 St Francis Magazine No. 3 (December 2005)

century Judaism was the context of Jesus, or do we have to accept it somehow as the essence
of Christology. Is it essential for our salvation, to believe and accept the Jewishness of Jesus?4

II. The Jewishness of Jesus

1. The Jewishness of Jesus in the New Testament

a. Relative silence
It is remarkable that the NT hardly addresses the Jewishness of Jesus explicitly. It is taken for
granted that Jesus was a Jew: He came from a Jewish family, traced his ancestry through King
David back to Abraham, lived according to the Torah, the Jewish law and was culturally part
of the Jewish society. Only incidentally, almost in passing over, it is mentioned, for instance
when Paul speaks about Jesus ‘according to the flesh’. This lack of attention is significant,
since the relationship between the more particular, Jewish character of the Old Testament
revelation and the universal character of the Gospel of Christ was a major issue in the first
church: should Gentiles become Jews to be part of the family of God and to have table-
fellowship with their Jewish Christian brothers and sisters or not? Even when the Jewishness
of Jesus would have been obvious to all, it still could have been a strong element in the
argumentation of the so called Judaizers to press their point and reversely Paul would likely
have had to address the issue from the opposite perspective. In any case, it is almost
impossible to claim, that the Jewishness of Jesus did not have any theological significance at
all. Therefore we will look at the brief statement that Paul makes about Jesus’ Jewishness in
Romans 9:5, and see how this might enrich our theological discussions.

b. ‘From them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah’ (Romans 9:5)
In Rom. 9:4 and 5 Paul is describing all the blessings God has given to Israel. He is doing so
in a passage which expresses his deep grief over Israel’s unbelief. The Jewish people did not
accept the Messiah and Paul wonders how this is possible, because to them belong the
adoption (as sons), the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the
promises; and to them belong the patriarchs; most of all, from Israel ‘according to the flesh’
comes the Messiah.
In this context, the phrase according to the flesh has a double function. First of all it
explains how Jesus as a human being belongs to the Jewish people. Contrary to the negative
connotations it has in Romans 8, here ‘flesh’ carries a more neutral meaning. It simply
describes Jesus’ ‘ethnic status’.5 According to his descent Jesus belongs to the Jewish nation.
This is the climax of all the blessings of Israel, for in that way Jesus belonged to no other
nation. How is it then possible that the Jews, God’s chosen people, have not accepted their
own Messiah? Should they not have been the first to embrace the Messiah? They were the
closest to salvation; to them Jesus was presented first; they had the first chance to follow Him.
But amazingly they did not. In a way – as Paul seems to say – they have rejected their election
(Rom. 9:32, 33; 10:3).

4
These terms, relevant and essential, were used in the discussion of the third consultation between the MECC
and the CCN in Amman in 1999. Therefore we keep using them in this article. G. Sabra reminded me during the
discussion of this lecture at the Near East School of Theology, that it is more correct to oppose ‘essential’ with
‘accidental’. See the conclusions.
5
T.Schreiner, Romans (ECNT) Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker
Bookhouse co., 20033), p. 486.

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 2

www.stfrancismagazine.info - www.interserve.org - www.arabvision.org
 St Francis Magazine No. 3 (December 2005)

Secondly however, ‘according to the flesh’ also has a ‘restrictive’ meaning.6 In the
context of Romans 9 Paul is emphasizing that God’s plan of salvation has proceeded not on
the basis of physical descent, but on the basis of the promise. It is not the children of the flesh
who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants.
(Rom. 9:8). Without God the ageing Abraham would not have been able to have a descendant
and without God Esau – and not Jacob (read: Israel) – would have been the natural heir to the
promise of Abraham. But God did not depend on ‘fleshly’, i.e. natural, lines of inheritance
and chose Jacob to pursue the covenant of Abraham. When Paul therefore emphasizes that the
Christ was from Israel according to the flesh, it can only be understood in a restrictive way.
Jesus is from Israel only ‘according to the flesh’. He only belongs to Israel according to his
‘ethnic status’. Knowing Jesus only according tot the flesh – that is in a natural way – is in the
light of God’s righteousness insufficient to participate in God’s salvation. Even the elected
people of God do not share in the righteousness of God on the basis of ethnicity, but only on
the basis of election and grace, through faith. Just as Abraham was only justified through faith
in God’s promise, so Israel today can only be justified through faith in Jesus Christ.
The implication of this, however, is that other people than just the Jews can also share in
God’s salvation. If it does not depend on ethnicity or status, but only on the unconditional
grace of God, the Gentiles can also belong to God’s covenant, as Gentiles that is (cf. Rom.
9:30, 31). They do not have to become Jews first. The Gospel is the power of God for
salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom. 1:16). Jesus
the Jew is also the Messiah of the Gentiles, in the same way that Abraham, the forefather of
Israel ‘according to the flesh’, was also the father of all believers (Rom. 4:1, 11).
We can conclude that Jesus, although being fully Jewish, in a certain way also transcends
his Jewishness. Transcending does not mean denying or excluding; his Jewishness is not
replaced by a new identity, but it is taken up into a greater reality.7 According to his birth
Jesus belongs to Israel, according to grace He is meant for Israel and the whole world. Jesus
is the Messiah over all (Rom. 9:5)8 Therefore not His Jewishness is the key to salvation, but
His ‘being the Messiah’.
When we have to understand the phrase according to the flesh in a restrictive way, it
follows that who Jesus is cannot simply be explained by his physical descent from Israel.
Jesus is also part of another reality. This is explicitly expressed in the second half of Rom.
9:5, depending on how we read the verse. It can be read as a reference to Christ, expressing
that He is God to be praised over all. Then Paul states explicitly, what he so far implicitly has
hinted at. Over against Christ’s humanity we find his divinity. The verse can also be read as
an independent doxology, a praise of God, who is blessed for all the gifts he has given to
Israel.9 Whatever reading we prefer, Jesus was acknowledged as more than only a Jewish
human being. What then does it mean for us today, that Jesus was a Jew and at the same time
that He transcended his Jewishness.

2. Understanding the Jewishness of Jesus.

a. Acknowledging the Jewishness of Jesus.

6
Cf. J.D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (WBC vol. 38b), p. 528.
7
Cf. N.T.Wright, The Climax of the Covenant. Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (London, New York:
T&T Clark, 2003), p. 192, n. 2. Wright speaks in a different context about the new creation that transcends
covenant categories.
8
We can also translate ‘over everything’, but that does not change the meaning of the text, since for Paul
‘mankind’ is part of the ‘created order’, cf. Rom. 8:19-23.
9
Cf. Dunn, Romans 9-16, p. 535; Schreiner, Romans, p. 489.
St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 3
www.stfrancismagazine.info - www.interserve.org - www.arabvision.org
 St Francis Magazine No. 3 (December 2005)

When transcending does not mean denying, we first of all have to acknowledge the
Jewishness of Jesus. For many Christians in Europe this is crucial, for they emphasize that if
the Church had realized more, that Jesus was a Jew, it might have at least partially prevented
the persistent Christian anti-Semitism in Europe, which culminated in the 20th century
Holocaust. Christians in the Middle East, however, would prefer to ignore the Jewishness of
Jesus when possible, because it is such a sensitive issue in the region. Besides that, anti-
Semitism – as many have pointed out – is a Western problem. The Middle East has not
experienced anything close to Auschwitz, and until the establishment of the State of Israel
anti-Semitism was relatively unknown in the region.10
Ignoring the issue, however, is probably not the best way forward for Christianity in the
Middle East, for two reasons.
i. First of all the Jewishness of Jesus is an important issue for many Christians in the
West, especially for Christian Zionist Movements in the United States and in Europe.
Ignoring the problem can only reinforce their idea that Christians in the Middle East, if they
are aware of their existence at all, are still ignorant of the major theological issues. The only
way to present a proper portrayal of the situation of Christianity in the Middle East is to be
able to deal with the relevant issues and to have a solid theological response. Therefore it is
imperative to struggle through these questions instead of going around them.
ii. Secondly, Jesus cannot be understood apart from his Jewish context. Without it, both
Jesus’ message and person become incomprehensible. If we try to understand Jesus apart
from His Jewishness he can be no more than an abstract figure from the past, a timeless icon,
an unreal myth. That in turn also leads us to interpret Jesus in any way we want: as an
illustration of eternal principles, as a spiritual medium, as a yogi, as some kind of Hercules or
even as an Islamic prophet. The question is, whether in that case we are still speaking about
the person that is at the center of Christianity. Without his historic context, we can simply
make our own systems fit around him.
In other words, there is an epistemological necessity to acknowledge the Jewishness of
Jesus. Without knowing contemporary Judaism, we cannot know the real Jesus.

b. A theological necessity
Besides the epistemological necessity, there is also a theological necessity to recognize the
Jewishness of Jesus, because God has revealed himself in this ‘Jewish’ way. God has chosen
to make Himself known to the world through the election of the insignificant nation of Israel.
God did not choose Israel, because of its qualities or outstanding faith, but only because of
His unconditional love. ‘It was not because you were more numerous than any other people
that the LORD set his heart on you and chose you -- for you were the fewest of all peoples. It
was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath that he swore to your ancestors’ (Deut.
7:7, 8). In other words, Israel reminds us of God’s grace. The Jewishness of Jesus therefore is
a constant reminder that we are not saved because of who we are, or because we are obedient
children of God, but only because of God’s love and grace. Through his Jewishness Jesus
constantly makes us aware, that for God we cannot depend on our descent, our natural
capacities, or even our good deeds. Even the chosen people need to embrace the Jew Jesus for
salvation; they cannot rely on their election.
That Jesus was a Jew therefore is a sign of God’s faithfulness; God has not changed. Jesus
affirms the love and grace of God. If Jesus would not have been a Jew, than God would have
proven to be unreliable, for he would have come back on his election of Israel. But if God
could come back on his promises to Israel, there is no reason he cannot come back on his

10
This of course is not to deny the problems that have existed in the Middle East, varying from persecution to
discrimination, the Jews obtaining a Dhimmi-status in Muslim-dominated areas.
St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 4
www.stfrancismagazine.info - www.interserve.org - www.arabvision.org
 St Francis Magazine No. 3 (December 2005)

promises to the Church today. Then He can change his plans again, whenever it suits Him and
those who believe in Christ cannot be sure of their salvation. Then there is no hope for the
world. The Jewishness of Jesus therefore, reminds us, that God can be trusted. He still saves
his people through grace. For, ‘it is not as though the word of God had failed’ (Rom. 9:6).

c. Which Jewishness of Jesus?

Having said this, the question is, whether this leads us to think that the establishment of
the State of Israel is the direct consequence of God’s grace? Is that what I suggest, that God is
known and characterized by this State? And does the fact that Jesus was a Jew force us to
relate to this colonial entity in order to understand Him? That would be more than offensive to
many. It is also not necessary to draw such conclusions.
First of all, when I am saying that God is known as the God of Israel, I am not referring to
the political State of Israel today. My point is that God in his plan of salvation did not choose
the strong and mighty to reveal his plans. This in itself poses many questions concerning the
State of Israel that today seems to base its security solely on power, either its own or that of
its main ally, the United States of America. What I am referring to is the first century nation
of Israel and to Jesus revealing God in relation to that nation.
Secondly, when I am saying that Jesus can only be understood as a Jew, I am not
primarily referring to Judaism today, but to first century Judaism. For most scholars from the
Middle East it is not a problem to become familiar with that kind of Judaism,11 but the point is
whether we also need to engage with, but the issue is whether we also need to engage with
modern Judaism to understand Jesus.12 My impression is that modern Judaism differs
substantially from first century Judaism. I am convinced, that traditional Arabic culture and
beliefs are much closer to first century Judaism than modern – often very Western – Judaism.
Many values in the Middle East today resemble biblical principles: for example the
importance of the family, the central values of honor and shame and the communal character
of faith. So if we want to understand the Jewish Jesus, we might need to immerse ourselves
more in the Arabic than in the modern Jewish culture.13
Thirdly, even if we say that Jesus was a first century Jew, we still need to clarify what we
mean. First century Judaism had many faces, varying from the Zealots, inclined to use
violence to purify the land from the Romans, to the Qumran community, that separated itself
completely from the world, in order not just to remain ritually pure and clean themselves, but
also to make atonement for the defiled land of Israel.14 So which Jew was Jesus? Can we fit
Him into one of the systems? Or do we have to accept that – although He was truly part of his
culture – his origin and being cannot ultimately be explained from it? Might it be better to
state that He represented God’s revelation and therefore responded critically to contemporary
Judaism as a whole? 15
In anyway it is clear, that emphasizing the Jewishness of Jesus in itself does not prove that
Israel today is God’s nation. The reality is more complex.

11
Cf. P.Valkenberg, “Confessing one God amidst Muslims and Jews: an Ecumenical-Theological Conversation
(II)” in: IRM, 89 (no 352, 2000), pp. 105-114, p. 106.
12
Cf. H. Vreekamp, ‘Report of the Ecumenical-Theological conversations on ‘the Church and the Jewish
People’ 1993, (prepared by Janneke Houdijk of the CCN), p. 15.
13
K. Bailey has shown in his different books how much understanding the Arabic culture helps to clarify the
New Testament.
14
Cf. W.D. Davies, The Territorial Dimension of Judaism (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of
California Press, 1992), p. 31, 32.
15
Cf. Raheb, Minutes 1995, p. 9; Mulder, “Conversation”, p. 103; P.Valkenberg, “Confessing one God”, p. 106.
St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 5
www.stfrancismagazine.info - www.interserve.org - www.arabvision.org
 St Francis Magazine No. 3 (December 2005)

3. Transcending the Jewishness of Jesus.

So if we have to know Jesus’ Jewish context to understand him, it is equally true, that His
context does not explain Him entirely. There is more Jesus, than the Jewish Jesus. So how
does Jesus transcend his Jewishness? Essentially I believe in two different ways.

1. Jesus, the Savior of the World.

First of all, Jesus transcends his Jewishness, because he is the fulfilment of Jewish
expectations. All the promises of God in the Old Testament concerning a new future for Israel
have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. In His death and resurrection the expected new age had
begun and through the blood of Christ the new covenant became a reality (Luk. 22:20). The
fullness of God’s salvation however, implies its universality. The reality of the new covenant
implies the inclusion of the Gentiles. When even the chosen people are not be saved by works
or by ethnicity, than there are no limitations to who can become part of the people of God. In
the light of God’s righteousness, the difference between Jews and Gentiles evaporates. All
have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Therefore all are also justified in
the same way, through faith in Jesus Christ.
Of course Jewish scholars will emphasize that this does not contradict Judaism. It has
been part of Gods promises from the beginning that Israel was going to be a blessing to the
nations (cf. Gen. 12:3; 22:18). The Old Testament expects the whole world to share in the
renewal of the new age. Therefore Paul argues in Romans, that the gospel he is bringing is not
a new religion, but the confirmation of the Old Testament Law of God (cf. Rom. 3:31). Even
so, the universality of the salvation that Jesus brings necessarily puts the Jewish exclusivity
and particularity into a different perspective. The Jewishness of Jesus is embraced by the
universality of the creation. The Messiah of Israel is also the second Adam, the inaugurator of
the new humanity (cf. Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:45). Therefore Gentiles can become like the
Jewish Christ, without having to become Jews themselves. That definitely is a new phase in
God’s salvation history. As the savior of the world, Jesus transcends the exclusivity of his
Jewishness.

2. Jesus, the Divine Savior

We cannot enter here into a full apologetic discussion whether Jesus really claimed to be God
himself, or whether he only considered himself a Jewish rabbi. Here I just want to point out
the improbability of the claim that Paul transformed the Jewish Jesus into a Divine Christ.
When we consider the strict monotheism of first century Judaism, it is impossible to believe
that de first Christians, who were all Jews (including Paul), could have ascribed divine
attributes to a mere human being. They would rather have died as martyrs, than to accept a
second divine being alongside God, the center of the Jewish faith being the confession that the
Lord is the one and only God (Deut. 6:4).16 Although Hellenistic Judaism tried to interpret the
Jewish faith in a Greek polytheistic context, still no one was willing to give up monotheism.
The utmost we could imagine is that they would regard Jesus as an exceptional prophet, a
messianic figure that would deliver them from the Romans or a martyr, who died for his
convictions. No martyr however was ever considered to be more than a human being, not
even in the time of the Maccabees, where the death of a martyr was believed to have
reconciliatory power.17 There is no other conclusion possible, than that the interpretation of
Jesus as a divine being, somehow must have originated in the person and teaching of Jesus
himself. Human categories apparently were not enough to interpret the essence of his being.

16
Cf. J.D.G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Louisville, Kentucky: The Westminster Press, 1985), p. 61.
17
Cf. 2 Macc. 7:37f; 4 Macc. 6:27-29; 17:20-22.
St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 6
www.stfrancismagazine.info - www.interserve.org - www.arabvision.org
 St Francis Magazine No. 3 (December 2005)

The belief, that Jesus was not only human, but also divine, impacts our understanding of
His Jewishness. Although the doctrine of the incarnation if we do not want to be docetic
underlines the Jewishness of Jesus – God became man – it nevertheless also puts the
Jewishness of Jesus into an essentially different perspective – God became man. If we would
emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus to the extent that it is essential for his revelation of God, it
would lead to the conclusion that God is a Jew. In this line of thinking however, we would
also have to conclude that God is male, since Jesus is a man. That however is a conclusion not
many would want to accept today. For although we can only speak of God in symbolic,
human language, God himself is not human. He transcends his creation and therefore cannot
be limited. He is neither male, nor Jew. He is God, the creator of the world and our language
and symbols fall short of the reality, they try to express.
We can conclude, that the only thing that is really essential about the incarnation, is the
fact that Jesus became truly human. Any form of docetism, the idea that Jesus was only
human in appearance, has been and needs to be rejected by the church as a heresy. The New
Testament even goes so far to claim that true humanity is defined by Christ. Therefore at
crucial points, the New Testament writers always emphasize the humanity of Jesus and not his
Jewishness (cf. Phil. 2:7).

III. Conclusion.
Is the Jewishness of Jesus relevant for Jesus’ being or ‘essential’? At the third consultation
between the MECC and the Council of Churches in the Netherlands, in 1999 in Amman, the
consensus was that the Jewishness of Jesus is not the heart of Christology: “it is relevant, but
not essential.” For some delegates from the Middle East even this conclusion was a bridge too
far. They could not accept the term ‘relevant’.18 For some Dutch delegates this conclusion did
not even reach far enough.
I am inclined to agree with that conclusion, although I would nevertheless want to be
careful in my expressions. It all depends on how we understand and interpret the terminology.
There is a certain ambivalence. On the one hand, Christians do not have to embrace the
Jewishness of Jesus in order to be saved and to become part of the family of God. In that
sense the Jewishness of Jesus is not essential. Jesus does not reveal God as a Jew, in the same
way that He does not reveal God as male. Jesus transcends his Jewishness, by being the savior
of the world and by being God in the flesh.
Yet on the other hand, relevant is only an adequate expression if we realize that the
Jewishness of Jesus is not optional. The proper expression in this respect would not be
‘relevant’ as the opposite of ‘essential’, but accidental. That expression certainly signifies
Gods freedom in choosing Israel as the nation of His revelation. He could have chosen any
other nation and in that sense the Jewishness of Jesus is not essential. At the same time
however ‘accidental’ can not be used tot state that ‘Jewishness’ does not say anything
essential about Jesus. Now that God has chosen to reveal himself in the history of the nation
of Israel, the Jewishness of Jesus is in a certain way essential. The Jewishness of Jesus can no
longer be exchanged for any other culture or tradition. God does not come back on his choice
and in that continuity we experience Gods faithfulness. He can be trusted, even by the
Gentiles today, and that He will complete the work He has begun.

18
Cf. the conclusions of the third consultation, T. Scudder, “The Context of Our Theologizing. A meeting of
Dutch and Middle Eastern theologians” in: Newsreport 12/1 (2000), pp. 12-14, p. 14, Valkenberg, “Confessing
one God”, p. 106.
St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 7
www.stfrancismagazine.info - www.interserve.org - www.arabvision.org
 St Francis Magazine No. 3 (December 2005)

In this duality it might be helpful to define more clearly what we mean by

‘Jewishness’/‘Jewish’. Do we interpret it as the specific political, economic and military
context of the Jewish State, today? Or is there another interpretation.
The distinction that the Dutch theologian Miskotte makes between the two theological
concepts of Eddah en Torah is very helpful in this respect. For Miskotte Eddah represents the
pagan, German myth, Torah stands for the explanation of the name of the God of Israel. That
name needs to be revealed to us. No one has access to God’s name by himself. Torah
criticizes every element of natural society and assures us that mankind is not getting away
with its self-redeeming tendency, which is so typical of Pagan religion.19 All our human
efforts fall short of what is required and are met by God’s judgment.

If we accept this definition of Edda and Torah, then we can pursue Miskotte’s thoughts
further by accepting, that also Israel (and Christianity) can become Eddah. Torah and Judaism
after all are not identical. Torah represents the revelation of God and Israel does not always
live by that revelation. At the same time we can also say that paganism (through Jesus) can
become Torah. "Those who were not my people I will call ' my people,'and her who was not
beloved I will call 'beloved. And in the very place where it was said to them, ' You are not my
people,'there they shall be called children of the living God." (Rom. 9:25, 26). Or as Paul
says: Gentiles can keep the law of God (Rom. 2:15), that is ‘in Christ’, when the law is being
fulfilled in them by the Spirit (8:4). Torah criticizes therefore every form of paganism, even
the Jewish type of it. That is why the prophets can be very critical on Israel, when it does not
live according to God’s law, and why Jesus is often criticizing the Jews for not believing in
Him. No religious system – not even the Christian religion – can ever be identified with the
Kingdom of God.
This leads us to the conclusion, that it is not the Jewishness of Jesus in itself, that is
decisive, but what it represents, the revelation of God; that revelation does not simply accept
Judaism as such. It condemns every form of unbelief and disobedience to God, even the
Jewish manifestation of it. Paradoxically it is exactly the Jewishness of Jesus that can criticize
the Jewish expression of resistance to God.

Finally, one thing should be clear. Christians do not have to become Jews and Jesus does
not condone the realities of the Jewish State in the Middle East. Whenever that would be the
necessary interpretation of the Jewishness of Jesus, we should renounce it. The only
‘skandalon’, obstacle, for the gospel that the New Testament identifies is the cross of Christ,
not his Jewishness. That, however, does not give us the freedom to develop our own model of
Jesus in the way He would suit us the best. We therefore have to speak with two words.
Whoever thinks He can claim Jesus as his savior on the basis of ethnicity and thinks he is
especially privileged with the Father because of a relationship according to the flesh, will be
deeply disappointed. For “even though we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we know
him no longer in that way” (2 Cor. 5:16) Whoever on the other hand thinks that Christ can be
completely isolated from his roots, shaped into our own image, will likewise be disappointed,
for such a Jesus is nothing but a powerless idol. Only in this duality can we understand the
mystery of the Jewishness of Jesus Christ.

19
Cf. A.H. Wöhle, “In Reply to Mitri Raheb – a Statement”, lecture at the third consultation between the MECC
and the CCNM, 1999, p. 6. In this way we are no longer speaking about the Torah as the five books of Moses,
but as a theological concept.
St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 8
www.stfrancismagazine.info - www.interserve.org - www.arabvision.org