Encyclopedia entry: Covenant

5/31/2021 Covenant Philip A. Cunningham and Adam Gregerman Covenant De Gruyter | 2021 https://doi.org/10.1515/ejcro.4414130 Entry Language English Table of Contents  Hebrew Bible The New Testament The Letters of Paul The Letter to the Hebrews Matthew and Luke Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity Medieval and Pre-World War II Views Covenant in Post-World War II Theologies of the Christian-Jewish Relationship Post-War Catholic View Post-War Protestant Views Post-War Jewish Views Conclusion Addendum: Contemporary Primary Texts Hebrew Bible From the Hebrew word berit, a covenant is a formal relationship, a treaty, or a legal understanding between individuals or groups. Although the Bible employs it for a promise to a (non-Israelite) individual or humanity (Gen 6:18; 9:11), a general bond of human friendship (1 Sam 18:1-4), a legal agreement (Gen 21:25-34), and a monarch’s promise to the people (2 Sam 5:3; Jer 34:8-20), it is almost always used in reference to the relationship between God and the people of Israel. Starting with Abraham (Gen 12:1-4; see also 15:1-21; and 17:1-14), God promises him and his descendants a land, a great name, and countless descendants. No explanation is given for God’s choice of Abraham, and nothing is asked of him except that all covenanted males be circumcised (Gen 17:10-14). The Genesis texts about the patriarchs establish the covenantal relationship that will be central in two defining Hebrew Bible narratives: the liberation of Israel from slavery and the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai. It is the groaning of the Israelites under their enslavement that causes God to be mindful of the “covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Ex 2:24; 6:5) and that prompts God to intervene. After bringing them out of Egypt “on eagle’s wings” to the mountain in the Sinai desert where God awaits, God declares, “if you will obey me faithfully and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all the peoples” (19:4). At Sinai Moses teaches the divine commandments (mitzvoth) that God expects of the covenanted people, including the Decalogue and a wide range of acts they are to do (or not do) to demonstrate covenantal fidelity. The people acclaim their faithfulness to God and the covenant is then ritually enacted when Moses sprinkles the blood of the sacrificed bulls upon the people (Ex 24:7-8). Much of the remainder of the Hebrew Bible is concerned with how well Israel fulfills its covenantal obligations. A certain pattern frequently recurs: the people violate the mitzvoth, then spokespersons (often prophets) appear who declare God’s wrath and foretell disaster, but eventually God’s love for Israel reasserts itself and God relents. Hosea (ca. 750-725 BCE) is typical. After denouncing the people for their violations of the covenant (4:1-19) and promising to destroy them, God ultimately relents (11:6-9; see also Mic 6-7). The demand for covenantal fidelity on Israel’s part is particularly prominent in the Deuteronomic tradition, which many scholars associate with the reign of King Josiah (640-609 BCE) and his discovery of the “book of the covenant” in the temple (2 Kings 23:2). The Deuteronomic Moses expresses the Josian understanding of https://www.degruyter.com/document/database/EJCRO/entry/ejcro.4414130/html# 1/10 5/31/2021 Covenant Israel’s covenant in dualistic terms: “I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse” (Deut 30:15). Israel will prosper by obeying the mitzvoth but face disaster if they worship other gods or act immorally. Importantly, though sinners will be punished, those who “return to the Lord your God” are assured that the covenant cannot ever be fully broken; God will take them back “in love” (30:1-2). The exilic prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel brought a strong eschatological aspect to covenantal language. A people that “defiled themselves” will nonetheless be gathered together under a Davidic king and given an everlasting “covenant of peace.” Even when they are sinful, God promises “they will be my people” (Ezek 37:1-28). Jeremiah prophesied that God would declare a “new covenant” with Israel and “put my teaching into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts” (Jer 31:33). Note this internalization does not involve the abrogation of the living and long-established relationship between God and Israel but rather its intensification. These prophetic visions of Israel’s living out its covenant in harmony with God’s desires would later inspire Jews and Christians in di erent ways. The New Testament The New Testament was composed entirely in Greek and, following the Septuagint, uses the Greek diathēkē for the Hebrew berit. However, while diathēkē can be, like berit, an agreement between living parties (esp. between God and the people of Israel [e.g., Lk 1:72; Rom 3:25; Gal 3:17]), it also can connote the disposition of an estate after someone’s death (as in Gal 3:15). Perhaps the most well-known use of covenantal language in the NT occurs in accounts of the Last Supper in the synoptic gospels (Mk 14:22-25; Mt 26:26-29; Lk 22:14-23) and in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. Jesus hosts a ritual meal around the time of Passover that includes bread and wine. He sees the meal as pointing toward the coming reign of God (Mk 14:25; Mt 26:29; Lk 22:16). Just as the Sinai covenant was sealed with sacrificial blood (Ex 24:8), the relationship among Jesus’ followers is called a “covenant” sealed in Jesus’ blood. Paul (1 Cor 11:25) and Luke (22:20) speak of a “new covenant,” evoking Jeremiah 31:31. Jesus instructs his followers to celebrate such ritual meals in the future in his memory (1 Cor 11:24-25; Luke 22:19). This perhaps echoes Jewish understanding that the Passover meal is intended for the “whole congregation of Israel,” including future generations (Ex 12:26-27, 47; see mPes 10:5). Importantly, in none of these accounts is there any claim that the covenant in Jesus’ blood replaces the existing covenant between God and Israel. The intimacy Jesus shares with his followers is modeled on the biblical covenant but is not in competition with it. Rather than representing the abrogation of Israel’s covenant, these NT authors connect the Last Supper with the imminent realization of Israel’s eschatological hopes and the later church’s covenant sealed in Jesus’ blood. Noteworthy covenantal language or ideas (sometime without explicit use of the term diathēkē) also appear in the following NT texts: The Letters of Paul Paul saw himself as a Jewish “apostle to the gentiles” (Rom 11:13; see also Gal 1:16; 2:2), and his letters are largely concerned with their standing before God and in early assemblies of Christ-believers. To become righteous before the imminent end, Paul held that non-Jews must turn “to God from idols to serve a living and true God” (1 Thess 1:9). He probably drew on Jewish traditions about the behavior God expects from all human beings as found in the Noahide laws (see below). With the raising of Christ, he believed, Israel’s covenanting was coming to its telos (Rom 10:4), its ultimate goal, because God’s promise to Abraham that he would be father of many nations (Gen 17:4) was coming to pass. Crucially, Paul did not deny the continuing duty of Jews to observe the covenant’s commandments, but insisted that formerly idolatrous gentiles were now becoming “Abraham’s o spring, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29; cf. Rom 4:11-18) as non-Jews. This was a controversial move, often expressed in polemical rhetoric that later Christians regularly interpreted in anti-Jewish ways. In his heated letter to the Galatians, Paul contends with unknown “agitators” (Gal 1:7; 5:10) who demanded that baptized gentiles be circumcised. They likely cited Genesis 17:10 to argue that since God established a covenant of circumcision with Abraham, the Galatians must likewise enter the covenant with God through circumcision (3:17; 4:24). In a series of counterarguments, Paul interprets Genesis texts about Abraham in reference to Christ and gentile believers. Paul contrasts God’s covenanting with Abraham and with Moses (through “the law, which came four hundred thirty years later”) (3:15-17). He posits a tension few if any other Jews would have recognized since they saw these covenants as complementary. Paul’s argument, by tightly focusing on requirements for gentile membership in the ecclesia, is limited in its scope. He shifts between a secular, legal meaning of covenant (diathēkē) as “will” or “last testament” and the relational, theological meaning of covenant as the reception of the promises “previously ratified by God” in order to argue that just as a https://www.degruyter.com/document/database/EJCRO/entry/ejcro.4414130/html# 2/10 5/31/2021 Covenant ratified will cannot be altered, so the covenant based on the promise to Abraham prior to his circumcision cannot be annulled by his subsequent circumcision or by the later revelation of the Mosaic law. Thus Paul presents Abraham and his spiritual gentile descendants as covenanted with God without circumcision. Paul also incorporates gentiles into the covenant by atypically reading “seed” as singular in number, although it is often used as a collective singular, as in the promises to Abraham’s descendants (Gen 22:17-18). Just as God declared Abraham righteous because of his faith, so, Paul maintains, God promised that one of Abraham’s seed, Christ, would enable gentiles to become righteous by their faith in Christ and not by circumcision. (He is inconsistent, however, shifting the meaning of “seed” back to the usual collective singular when he refers to the Galatians [plural] as Abraham’s seed because they “belong to Christ” [3:29]). Paul returns to the topic of covenant in Galatians 4:21-5:1 by using the two women who bore sons to Abraham as a metaphor for “two covenants,” which he then analogizes to two di erent “gospels.” Hagar, Abraham’s Egyptian slave, gave birth, says Paul, “according to the flesh,” while the unnamed Sarah gave birth “through the promise.” The agitators’ gospel of the flesh, symbolized by Hagar, requires circumcision, but Paul asserts that the Galatians are, like Sarah’s son Isaac, “children of the promise.” They are the spiritual realization of God’s promise to Abraham that he would father many nations (Gen 17:4-10). Although his heated rhetoric can be misleading, Paul does not anachronistically contrast Jewish and Christian “covenants” or the Old and New Testaments. Instead, he vigorously contradicts his challengers by explaining what Abraham’s covenant really means for the gentiles in Galatia. In 2 Corinthians 3:1-4:6, Paul defends his competence as a “minister of a new covenant” (3:6), writing that the people of Israel have a veiled reading of the “old covenant” (3:14). The new covenant is Paul’s kerygma, a “ministry of the spirit [and …] of justification,” a message of “glory” (3:8-18). He links the “old covenant” with the act of “reading […] Moses” by both biblical Israelites and contemporary Jews, suggesting that he has in mind the Mosaic revelation as they interpret it (3:15). His confrontational comments are sometimes harshly critical, but since he writes for gentile readers, it is likely that Paul is again discussing the consequences of the Torah for idolatrous pagans. Moses’ ministry (not covenant) came in a blinding glory that condemned idol worship and exposed the depravity of pagans. This “ministry of death” for pagans is now rendered powerless by the even more brilliant glory of the ministry of the Spirit that raised Christ, the ministry that Paul exercises (3:7). He somewhat confusingly ventures that for Jewish readers without the more brilliant light of Christ, the glory of the old covenant functions as a veil to obscure its lighting the way toward Christ (3:13-16; 4:4). He writes that Jews’ minds were “hardened” (3:14), like Pharaoh’s heart (Ex 4:21; cf. Rom 11:25-26). Paul’s essential contrast is between christological and non-christological readings of the Torah, not between two separate “old” and “new” covenants. He defends his ministry by comparing it to that of Moses and by noting how the people of Israel at Mount Sinai (Ex 34:29-35) and his own 1st-cent. Jewish contemporaries were both overwhelmed by the blinding revelation of God’s glory. The Letter to the Hebrews This epistolary homily contains a lengthy discussion of the relationship between the “old covenant” or “first covenant” and the “new covenant” (8:8, 13; 9:1). Written shortly before or after the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the author writes with eschatological fervor. Everything that existed in the old covenant pales in significance to the fullness of the new covenant, which was initiated when Christ was raised into the divine presence, here called “the tabernacle not made with hands” and “the holy place” (9:11-12). The author focuses on the Temple sacrifices to illustrate the old epoch’s giving way to the new. The author portrays Christ as the perfect high priest who sheds his own blood once and for all, a superior sacrifice to that of priests who repeatedly o er the blood of sacrificial animals in the earthly Jerusalem Temple (9:24-28). In every respect Christ’s sacrifice surpasses those of the first covenant. This writer sees his world as existing in a short transitional period between the epoch of normal human history and the age to come. Invoking the inner and outer tents described in Exod 25-27 (see esp. 26:33), he states that the outer tent is “a parable of the present time” (9:9) and a “mere copy of the true [sanctuary],” which is the heavenly sanctuary where God dwells and where the raised Christ has entered (9:23-24). There is a sense of living in an “in-between” time: “The way into the [heavenly] inner sanctuary has not yet been disclosed as long as the first tent is still standing” (9:8). The author speaks positively of the rituals of the first covenant “sanctifying” and “purifying” worshippers (9:13), while also judging that the covenant initiated by Christ’s blood is “greater and better” (9:11). The rituals and laws of the first covenant are only a shadow of the good things already begun with Christ but about to come to their fulfillment (10:1, 13). This author is not comparing “Judaism” and “Christianity,” which did not yet exist as such. He is contrasting the past and the imminent future. The writer believes that the eschatological vision of Jeremiah 31 about the future “new covenant” is literally materializing. The present age and all that exists – including but not limited to the first covenant – is becoming “obsolete” https://www.degruyter.com/document/database/EJCRO/entry/ejcro.4414130/html# 3/10 5/31/2021 Covenant and “will soon disappear” (8:13) (Svartvik 2011). Matthew and Luke Matthew does not explicitly use the Greek word for “covenant,” and it appears only three times in Luke-Acts. However, the concept of Israel’s covenanting with God appears in di erent ways in both works. In Matthew, Jesus does not claim that Israel’s covenant with God or its commandments have been terminated. His claim that he “has not come to abolish the law or the prophets” (5:17) underscores instead that God’s covenant with Israel has achieved its ultimate expression. Harsh attacks are leveled against rival Jewish leaders, who are sometimes threatened with destruction and replacement by more suitable leaders (e.g., 8:10-12; 15:1-9; 16:1-12; 21:33-46; 22:1-14; 23:1-39; 27:20). His view of non-elite Jews is mixed; some are bitterly criticized for their unbelief (e.g., 13:15; 27:25), though importantly nowhere does he present corporate Israel as rejected by God and cast out of the covenant (Saldarini 1994). At the start of his Gospel, Luke asserts that Jesus will be born because “the Lord God of Israel […] has remembered his holy covenant” (1:68, 72). Jesus will bring “glory for [the] people Israel” and (foreshadowing Acts) he will be “a light of revelation to the gentiles” (2:32). This a rmation of Israel’s covenant appears also in Peter’s speeches in Acts, when he emphasizes Jews’ special status using biblical terms that recall the abiding promises of God (3:12, 25). However, Luke introduces faith in Jesus as the requirement for (continuing) covenantal membership. He hints at this early on (Lk 2:34) and later makes the criterion explicit for remaining in the covenant: “faith in [Jesus’] name” (Acts 3:11-25). Only then can they be spared from being “utterly rooted out of the [Jewish] people” (3:12-26), in other words, out of the covenant. Acts increasingly o ers a pattern of growing Jewish opposition, culminating in a concluding passage with Paul saying to Jews in Rome: “this salvation of God has been sent to the gentiles; they will listen” (28:23-28). Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity In the early Christian / classical Rabbinic period (approximately 2nd cent. CE to 5th/6th cent. CE) mutually exclusive claims to being in covenant with God emerged. The rabbis asserted a linear connection to the covenant made with Israel on Sinai and considered themselves bound by its commandments (mAv 1:1). They o ered diverse explanations for and defenses of their unique relationship with God. Because it is di cult to date most Rabbinic texts, it is often impossible to determine whether the rabbis are responding to Christians’ denying that Jews live in covenant with God or simply reinforcing the claim for themselves or for fellow Jews. As it emerged in the second century and soon became nearly universal, this Christian denial rested on a stark conviction that Christians (though largely former pagans) have taken the place of Jews as God’s covenanted people. Christians buttressed their claims by combining and intensifying several accusations in the NT, such as Jews’ hostility to Jesus and his followers, their responsibility for the Crucifixion, their hypocrisy (esp. the Pharisees), and their inability to understand their own scriptures. They then sought visible evidence of divine disfavor toward the Jews because of their transgressions (e.g., Jerusalem in ruins, with the people largely living scattered and powerless across many lands [Barn. 4:7-8; Origen, Cels 4:22; Eusebius, Dem. Ev. 1:1, 6; 9:3, 425b]). It is in this polemical context that the dominant views of covenant in the Jewish and Christian traditions emerged. Yet it is often di cult to reconstruct the historical setting of many statements, and evidence of face-to-face disputes is rare. In Rabbinic texts, there are scattered examples of arguments involving rabbis that may have involved Christians (e.g., tHul 2:2023; bShab 116a-b; bAZ 4a, 27b) and statements that seem to undercut Christian views of Jesus (e.g., ExR 29:4; yTaan 2:2, 65b) (Schäfer 2007; Kalmin 1994). However, one need not posit an apologetic purpose or an external audience to explain the genesis of Rabbinic statements on covenant; the topic has intrinsic importance. In what follows, then, the focus is on prominent claims (explicit and implicit) about the covenant made by the rabbis, with a preference for those that touch on fundamental features of covenantal theology and communal identity, perhaps hinting at competing claims between Jews and Christians. Among the salient issues for the rabbis were two in particular: how the Jews and God entered into covenant and what was expected of both parties. Of all the covenants mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, it was the Sinai covenant with all Israel that was primary for the rabbis. The Bible o ers some hints at God’s motives for initiating a covenant (e.g., Ex 15:13; Deut 7:7-9) but there is no uniform explanation, and rabbis thus proposed some of their own. Most widespread is the view that God graciously and without any action on Israel’s part chose to enter into a covenant with Israel. This was not due to the people’s special merit, but rather due to divine love and trust in their future obedience. Sometimes, this love is linked with God’s promises to the patriarchs, so that the inclusion of their descendants in the covenant illustrates God’s faithfulness to God’s promises. Not surprisingly, some rabbis speculate that Israel’s response to God’s initial outreach—their eager acceptance of the Torah— https://www.degruyter.com/document/database/EJCRO/entry/ejcro.4414130/html# 4/10 5/31/2021 Covenant demonstrates the wisdom of God’s choice (e.g., bShab 88a). Adopting a wider lens, some claimed that all the nations of the world were given a chance to receive the Torah but refused on account of its ethical demands; only Israel was willing to follow God (e.g., SifDev 343). Importantly, rabbis insist that the covenant is unbreakable. While they granted that Jews could transgress, they believed that atonement is possible and that punishment, for all but the most grievous of sins, does not sever their relationship with God (mSan 10:1; bYom 86a). Characteristically, there is no one Rabbinic perspective on these (as on other) issues, though there are common themes of divine grace and grateful acceptance, almost always linked with Torah observance (e.g., Mekh Bahodesh 5, 6). Rabbis assume the existence of this covenantal relationship, and thus explicit discussions of the covenant are rare in the main Rabbinic texts (Talmudim, Midrashim). Their focus is on what is expected of those already in the covenant. (Many more covenantal references are found in liturgical texts [Segal 1985]). This is especially true of halakhic texts, which are premised on the notion that the Israelites, now linked to God in covenant, can properly be commanded by God to observe the law. (Sanders called this “covenantal nomism” [Sanders 1977, 75].) The covenantal lifestyle, understood as living in accordance with God’s will, is exemplified by studying and doing the Torah (e.g., mAv 2:8). Importantly, God can covenant even with gentiles, an idea the rabbis trace to God’s covenant with Noah and his descendants in Genesis 9 (tSan 13:2; tAZ 8:4-9; bSan 56a-b). Rather than observe the Torah, gentiles are expected to comply with the Noahide commandments, a sort of natural law or moral code of behavior for humanity (first found in Jub 7:20-29). At the same time that the Rabbinic movement was emerging, Christian communities were growing rapidly throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. These churches were increasingly composed of former pagans, yet most Christians (but not all, e.g., Marcion) insisted on retaining the Hebrew Bible (using the Septuagint). This text was however claimed by Jews as well, something widely known in the Greco-Roman world. Christians therefore had a strong interest in arguing that the biblical covenant had been transferred to them. It became essential to show that the sacred text, read correctly (i.e., christologically), actually told their story. Naturally, they did so using biblical categories, thus claiming that the God of Israel now covenanted with them and not with the Jews. (Some doubted that God ever did, cf. Barn. 4:7-8.) Scattered instances of dialogue and disputations with Jews may have prompted some of these discussions (Justin, Dial.; Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus; Origen, Cels. 1:45, 55; 2:31; 4:2; 6:29), though a major impetus for defending Christian claims to the Bible and to the covenant was the challenge from Marcion (Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 1:20). One need not assume there was some external incitement to take up this topic. The claim that (in Christian terms) the church was the “New Israel” and within a new covenant is so fundamental to Christian self-understanding that it naturally prompted discussion. Early Christian writers grounded their arguments in readings of scripture that sharply clashed with those of Jews. Prophetic passages rebuking the ancient Israelites and mentions of a “new covenant” (e.g., Jer 31:31-34) were used to show that God had long-ago intended the abrogation of the Jewish (“old”) covenant (Justin, Dial. 11, 123; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 3; Adv. Marc. 4:1; Origen, De Prin. 4:2-3; Clement, Peda. 1:7; Lactantius, Div. Inst. 4:20). Christian texts (perhaps with the exception of the Ps.- Clem.; e.g., Hom. 8:6-7) denied that Jews and Christians could both be covenanting with God. On the contrary, Christian claims to the covenant were exclusive. Over time, this exclusivism would undergird the fundamental conviction that only those in the true church were eligible for salvation (Irenaeus, Ag. Her. 3:4:1; Origen, Hom. on Josh. 3:5; Cyprian, Unity 1:6). This is a contrast to the Jewish / Rabbinic model, which while premised on the covenant between God and Israel did not concomitantly insist that (non-idolatrous) gentiles as such were cut o from God. It was the nearly unanimous view among post-NT Christians that a central feature of Israel’s covenantal life—the requirement to observe the Torah’s commandments—no longer applied to anyone. The reasons given were manifold: the law was in e ect only until the coming of Jesus; Jesus fulfilled the law, thereby abrogating it; the law was ine ective or unable to save its followers; the law was given not for righteousness but to restrain the Jews because of their natural propensity to sin; and the law should not be understood in literal terms but metaphorically. This was typically paired with denunciations of Jewish legalism and charges that Jews ignored the deeper meaning of the commandments. Belief in the unique status and work of Jesus was the single criterion for life in covenant with God (applies to this whole section): (Donaldson 2016, Lundbom 1999, Wilson 1995). Ancient Christian views (often, caricatures) of Judaism have had remarkable longevity and influence, furnishing a negative foil to Christian religious claims, and not always against Judaism. (For example, Luther’s hostility toward law and legalism emerges in his anti-Catholic polemic, though it had anti-Jewish repercussions). Until recently, unfortunately, Christian scholars have long misrepresented and / or misunderstood the nature of the Jewish covenant. Accusations that Rabbinic https://www.degruyter.com/document/database/EJCRO/entry/ejcro.4414130/html# 5/10 5/31/2021 Covenant Judaism is legalistic or vacuous; that the rabbis portray a vengeful, distant, or unforgiving God; or that the covenant was viewed as fragile and easily broken, for example, parallel (and draw from) ancient and medieval anti-Jewish polemics (Stendahl 1976; Sanders 1977). Medieval and Pre-World War II Views Hostility to Jews and Judaism and claims that their covenant with God was abrogated were widespread in pre-modern Christian thought. These were often similar to and influenced by ideas developed in the early church. Luther’s statement, while notably harsh, is not unusual: “the Jews, surely rejected by God, are no longer his people, and neither is he any longer their God” (“On the Jews and Their Lies,” LW 47:138-39). There are milder and more nuanced views. Some insisted that a faithful God could not entirely cancel the biblical covenant and promises to the Jewish people, though they also presented highly critical views about unfaithful Jews and hopes for their conversion (e.g., Aquinas, Comm. on Rom. 9:5; Calvin, Inst. 2:9, 11). There also were supporters of restorationism, whose eschatological scenarios required Jews to return to the land of Israel. They emphasized the so-called literal meaning of the covenant with God against a spiritualizing view that replaced Israel with the church. This minority viewpoint could be found beginning in the 16th century and especially in the English-speaking world (e.g., Puritans such as Jonathan Edwards and Increase Mather), and it would later influence what came to be called Christian Zionism in the 20th century. Some European Christian thinkers before and during the Second World War, aghast at the allure of Nazi antisemitism for many Christians, sought to mount theological counterarguments. However, without critiquing the long-lived tradition that the Jewish relationship with God was one of punishment and exile, their e orts persuaded few and prompted no serious reevaluations (Connelly). Thus, for example, some Catholic theologians writing in 1938 could a rm that “Israel remains the chosen people, for its election has never been revoked” (Humani Generis Unitas §140). However, this covenanted status only provided the “possibility of salvation […] once they are converted from their sins [by accepting Christ], and return to the [authentic] spiritual tradition of Israel, which is properly theirs by their historic past and calling” (Passelecq / Suchecky 1997, 250-51). Likewise, Karl Barth insisted on the Jews’ unbreakable covenant with God yet spoke of the “synagogue” as “dead Israel” and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE as “the consummation of their sins” (CD II / 2 §34.1; 35.4). Covenant in Post-World War II Theologies of the Christian-Jewish Relationship In the wake of the Shoah a dramatic and unprecedented shift in Christian teachings about Jews and Judaism began. Admitting the support theological anti-Judaism gave to Nazi antisemitism and the abject failure of nearly all churches (and church members) to oppose persecution of Jews, both Catholics and Protestants began a painful reevaluation and rejection of what had long been taught about Jews. Post-War Catholic View The most prominent post-Shoah ecclesiastical reconsideration of Christian understandings of Jewish covenantal life was the 1965 declaration Nostra Aetate, issued by the Second Vatican Council. It cited Paul’s letter to the Romans to speak in the present tense of Jews’ possessing “the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises” (Rom 9:4) and as “beloved of God […] for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (11:28-29). It also directed that “the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures” (§4). This implicit a rmation of an ongoing Jewish covenantal relationship with God was later made explicit, especially by Pope John Paul II, who spoke of the contemporary encounter “between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant” and of “the meeting between present-day Christian Churches and the present-day people of the Covenant concluded with Moses” (Pope John Paul II 1980: §249). The Catholic recognition that Jews abide in covenant with God led the CRRJ to state that “the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews.” Catholics should explain or give witness to their faith in Christ as an essential but non-conversionary aspect of open interreligious dialogue with Jews, which is part of the Church’s overall evangelical mission (CRRJ 2015: §40). Dozens of post-Nostra Aetate ecclesial texts have deepened Catholic reflection on Jewish covenantal life. Pope Francis, for example, observed that “God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word” (Pope Francis 2014: §249). This word of God is expressed both in the texts of the Torah and in the person of Jesus (Pope Francis 2015). The CRRJ amplified this, stating that the Torah places Jews “in right relationship with God,” brings them “life in its fullness,” and gives them “a share in communion with God” (§24).” These words all convey that there is a salvific character to Jewish covenantal life. https://www.degruyter.com/document/database/EJCRO/entry/ejcro.4414130/html# 6/10 5/31/2021 Covenant Post-War Protestant Views Protestant churches (initially European but eventually American as well) denounced antisemitism (e.g., World Council of Churches 1946) and, over time, the notion of corporate and heritable guilt for Jesus’ death (e.g., Episcopal Church 1964). A rmative statements about the status of Judaism after Jesus were more complex and conflicted and often expressed in covenantal language. As early as 1948, the World Council of Churches used exclusively positive terms about Jewish life in covenant (unlike earlier claims that a rmed the covenant while condemning Jews). Later documents emphasized the enduring status of the Jewish covenant and objected to claims that it was abrogated and replaced by the new (Christian) covenant. Even in unbelief, Israel remained God’s covenant people, for their bond was unbreakable (e.g., WCC 1948; Protestant Church in Germany 1950; 1960). However, for the first few post-Shoah decades major European churches simultaneously asserted the insu ciency of Jewish covenantal life for salvation and encouraged Jewish conversions. Their support for proselytism illustrates the limits at that time in Christian grappling with the implications for Christian theology of Jewish covenanting (e.g., WCC 1948; Evangelical Lutheran Church of Saxony [1948]; Lutheran World Federation [1964]; Federation of Protestant Churches in Belgium [1968], Reformed Church of Netherlands [1970]). In the decades after Nostra Aetate, many Protestant churches increasingly also cited Romans 9-11 as giving firm assurance that Jews, whether believing in Christ or not, remained in covenant with God. This furnished biblical grounding for a departure from the traditional claim that the Jewish “no” to Jesus justified their rejection by God (e.g., Presbyterian Church USA [1987]). Also striking, starting in the 1970s, is waning support for (though seldom outright rejection of) e orts to convert Jews, at least among mainline churches. Changed views of covenant necessitated changing views of mission (e.g., Episcopal Church [1988]; Evangelical Church of Germany [2016]). Denunciations of supersessionism become ubiquitous, together with increasingly sophisticated discussions of terms such as fulfillment and confirmation. Over the last few decades Evangelical churches and organizations have also rejected replacement theology, often relying on Romans 9-11 to insist that Jews are in covenant with God. However, they typically instrumentalize Jews by constructing various soteriological scenarios in which Jews play a role. Jewish covenantal life is not su evangelistic e orts otiose. Thus Evangelical a cient for salvation, nor does it make rmation of Judaism’s covenantal validity is limited (e.g., Lausanne Committee on World Evangelization [1980]). Some Christian Zionist groups especially object to replacement theology and downplay an interest in converting Jews because of their political views about Israel based on Genesis 12:3 (Spector 2009, 113-18). Post-War Jewish Views Since the division of humanity into Jews and gentiles is a basic organizing principle in Jewish thought, and since Jewish identity is defined in its own covenantal terms, Jews traditionally had little interest in the beliefs of non-Jews. Rabbis saw gentiles as righteous if they complied with the minimal Noahide laws and covenant. Jews were and are aware of the particularity of Christianity and Islam, but there was no need to see them as anything more than generic Noahides. Following the post-World War II shift in Christian attitudes toward Jews, however, a few Jews tentatively began to consider the status of Christianity vis-à-vis the God of Israel. This has been challenging because of a reluctance to seem to endorse Christian claims, especially those that had been used to delegitimize God’s covenanting with Jews. Typically, Jewish thinkers ignore distinctive Christian theological claims or re-cast them entirely in Jewish terms. (A medieval precedent for this can be seen in Maimonides’s writings, and his vision of a religious role for Christianity that consisted of spreading knowledge of the God of Israel [MishT Laws of Kings 11:10]). In the early 20th cent., Franz Rosenzweig proposed a dual covenant model for understanding the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, with each having distinctive but related soteriological roles (Rosenzweig). More recent statements on Christian worship of the God of Israel o er vague praise for Christian reforms but no exploration of the nature of the relationship between Christians and the one God (National Jewish Scholars Project [2000]; Conference of European Rabbis, Chief Rabbinate of Israel, and Rabbinical Council of America [2015]). Some contemporary Jewish theologians such as Irving Greenberg and Michael Kogan (Greenberg 2004; Kogan 2008) go further and a rm a divine purpose for Christians in the world. Strikingly, they cast this role in covenantal terminology traditionally applied only to Jews. They also wrestle seriously with Christian theological claims, including messianism. Their https://www.degruyter.com/document/database/EJCRO/entry/ejcro.4414130/html# 7/10 5/31/2021 Covenant views of the two traditions’ respective covenantal relationships reflect a sympathetic awareness of what divides the two religions. This perspective is also found, in much briefer form, in a 2015 statement on Christianity authored by a group of Orthodox rabbis (including Greenberg) (Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation [2015]). Conclusion The ancient biblical term “covenant” has become a major topic in today’s theological consideration of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, especially among Christians. There is a trend toward understanding the term not in a static sense but as denoting a living relationship with God, as “a metaphor for a relationship, not the name of a unique metaphysical object” to be possessed or lost (Solomon 2001). Among Christians, there is a widespread tendency after World War II to emphasize that Jews continue to covenant with God. This has prompted some Jews and Christians to rethink how they understand the other community’s relationship with God. In various ways, there are e orts to seek continuity with traditional teachings while at the same time a rming that the other community is somehow “of God” or manifests holiness. Jews grapple with how Christians might relate to God in non-Torah focused ways, whereas Christians ponder how Jews can be covenanting with God without belief in Christ. Perhaps by studying together how their respective traditions have developed over time, Christians and Jews can assist each other in being faithful to their particular religious identities and covenantal responsibilities while also learning more about God from one another’s ways of covenanting. Addendum: Contemporary Primary Texts Most found in Sherman, F. (ed.), Bridges: Documents of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue (2 vols.) (New York/Mahwah 2011, 2014). All found at www.dialogika.us: - Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation (CJCUC), “To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven: Toward a Partnership between Jews and Christians” (2015). - Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with the Jews (CRRJ), “‘The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable’ (Rom 11:29): A Reflection on Theological Questions Pertaining to Catholic-Jewish Relations on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of Nostra Aetate (No. 4)” (2015). - Conference of European Rabbis, Chief Rabbinate of Israel, and Rabbinical Council of America, “Between Jerusalem and Rome: Reflections on Fifty Years of Nostra Aetate” (2015). - Episcopal Church, “Deicide and the Jews” (1964). - Episcopal Church, “Jews, Christians and Muslims: The Way of Dialogue” (1988). - Evangelical Church of Germany, “Declaration of the 12th Synod, 3rd Session” (2016). - Evangelical Lutheran Church of Saxony, “Declaration of Guilt toward the Jewish People” (1948). - Federation of Protestant Churches in Belgium, “On the Relations between Judaism and Christianity” (1968). - Pope Francis, “Letter to Non-Believers” (2013). - Pope Francis, “Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium” (2014). - Pope Francis, “Address to the International Council of Christians and Jews” (2015). - Pope John Paul II, “Address to Representatives of the West German Jewish Community” (1980). - Lausanne Committee on World Evangelization, “Christian Witness to the Jewish People” (1980). - Lutheran World Federation, “The Church and the Jewish People” (1964). - Lutheran World Federation, “On the Theology of the Church’s Relation to Judaism” (1969). - National Jewish Scholars Project, “Dabru Emet: A Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity” (2000). - Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), “A Theological Understanding of the Relationship Between Christians and Jews” (1987). - Protestant Church in Germany, “On the Jewish Question” (1950). https://www.degruyter.com/document/database/EJCRO/entry/ejcro.4414130/html# 8/10 5/31/2021 Covenant - Protestant Church in Germany, “Declaration against Antisemitism” (1960). - Reformed Church of the Netherlands, “Israel: People, Land, and State” (1970). - World Council of Churches, “Resolution on Antisemitism and the Jewish Situation” (1946). - World Council of Churches, “The Christian Approach to the Jews” (1948). Bibliography Connelly, J., From Enemy to Brother: The Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews, 1933-1965 (Cambridge/London 2012). Search in Google Scholar Donaldson, T. L., “Supersessionism and Early Christian Self-Definition,” Journal of the Jesus Movement in Its Jewish Setting from the First to the Seventh Century 3 (2016) 1-32. Search in Google Scholar Du , P., Moses in Corinth: The Apologetic Context of 2 Corinthians 3, Novum Testamentum Supplements 159 (Leuven 2015). Search in Google Scholar Greenberg, I., For the Sake of Heaven and Earth: The New Encounter between Judaism and Christianity (Philadelphia 2004). Search in Google Scholar Kalmin, R., “Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity,” Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994) 155-69. Search in Google Scholar Kogan, M. S., Opening the Covenant: A Jewish Theology of Christianity (Oxford/New York 2008). Search in Google Scholar Lundbom, J., “The New Covenant in the New Testament and Patristic Literature to A.D. 325,” in Jeremiah 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Garden City 1999) 474-82. Search in Google Scholar Passelecq, G./B. Suchecky, The Hidden Encyclical of Pius XI (New York 1997). Search in Google Scholar Rosenzweig, F., The Star of Redemption (Madison, Wis. 2005); trans. of id., Der Stern der Erlösung (Frankfurt 1921). Search in Google Scholar Saldarini, A. J., Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago/London 1994). Search in Google Scholar Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia 1977). Search in Google Scholar Schäfer, P., Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton 2007). Search in Google Scholar Segal, A. F., “Covenant in Rabbinic Writings,” Studies in Religion 14 (1985) 53-62. Search in Google Scholar Solomon, N., “Covenant” (Paper presented at Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT, December 2001). Search in Google Scholar Spector, S., Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism (New York 2009). Search in Google Scholar Stendahl, K., Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia 1976). Search in Google Scholar Svartvik, J., “Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews without Presupposing Supersessionism,” in Christ Jesus and the Jewish People Today: New Explorations of Theological Interrelationships (eds., P. A. Cunningham, et al; Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2011) 77-91. Search in Google Scholar Wilson, S., Related Strangers: Jewish-Christian Relations 70-170 C.E. (Minneapolis 1995). Search in Google Scholar Source Title Encyclopedia of Jewish-Christian Relations Online Publisher De Gruyter https://www.degruyter.com/document/database/EJCRO/entry/ejcro.4414130/html#  FULL ACCESS 9/10 5/31/2021 Covenant  FULL ACCESS Encyclopedia of Jewish-Christian Relations Online Product Information Search Online Reference  Contact us Career Open Access Customer Service How to join us Articles Human Resources Current Vacancies Books Press Working at De Gruyter Funding & Support Our Partner Publishers Publish your book For Libraries & Trade Partners Publish your journal article Electronic Journals Abstracting & Indexing Ebooks Contacts for authors For Authors Databases & Online Reference Metadata Rights & Permissons About De Gruyter Help/FAQ Repository Policy De Gruyter Foundation Privacy Policy Free Access Policy Our locations Terms & Conditions Legal Notice © Walter de Gruyter GmbH 2021 https://www.degruyter.com/document/database/EJCRO/entry/ejcro.4414130/html# 10/10