Reflections on Grace and Community

Peter Schmiechen is a theologian and former President of Lancaster Theological Seminary. He has published extensively on the subjects of Grace and the Church

Month: August 2025

Christians and Jews Part II:     Current Issues and the Goal of Peace

By

On August 8, 2025

In Politics, Theology

Central Thesis

      In Part One I summarized Paul’s view, set forth in Romans 9-11, that the New Covenant in Jesus in no way meant that God had abandoned the Covenant of Moses.  Indeed, God intends for the two communities to live in peace until a final time when God will reconcile all things.  I want to use this perspective for understanding the current relations of Christians and Jews, especially in light of contentious issues in the Mideast as well as the United States.

1. The State of Israel should have access to land in Palestine.

      Anyone who has looked at material relating to the creation of the State of Israel after WWII finds that while there was general agreement that Israel should have land, it has never been decided how much or how Jews and Palestinians should share the land.  As a result, the history of the State of Israel has been one of several wars and continuous disputes over land.  For the record, I am in favor of the existence of the State of Israel, but even more, that Jews live in peace.

      If peace is the ultimate goal, then it follows that such a peace must involve the Palestinians.  This is implied in the persistent attempt to find a Two State Solution—an idea that no one has been able to achieve. But the idea is essential for peace, since it affirms that Jews and Palestinians both have some level of claim to the land and that the two sides can only find peace if they acknowledge this.

      This brings us to the great problem, leadership on either side seems unwilling to make this commitment.  Mr. Netanyahu and Hamas have opposed the Two State Solution and actions by both sides further alienate the other side.  (I am referring to the brutal massacre of Oct 7 and the war against Gaza since then.)  Hamas must take responsibility for that atrocity and Netanyahu must take responsibility for the military strategy since Oct 7.  Most important, Netanyahu and Hamas must take responsibility for not pursuing a settlement before Oct. 7, 2023. Recall that Netanyahu first came to power in 1996.  There were precedents for the two sides seeking a solution.  For example, in 1993 Israel and the PLO chose to work toward peace.  From the standpoint of all the violence and suffering this was unthinkable.  But when the alternatives are more war or some form of settlement, it is necessary.  It was this which prompted Yitzhak Rabin to say: “Peace is not made with friends.  Peace is made with enemies, some of whom—and I won’t mention names—I loathe very much.”  (New York Times, Sept. 5, 1993, sec. 4, p. 1) 
      There is an inevitable dynamic between possessing the land and peace.  Israel wants land and peace, but there can be no peace if it does not involve peace for Palestinians.  Another way of saying this is that peace in the region cannot be found by military force. In fact, it might be said that attempts to acquire all the land makes the chances for peace less likely.

      Given this complexity, it becomes all the more important for there to be leadership toward a settlement from states in the region as well as Europe and the United States.  One of the disappointments is the failure of American presidents to work for peace on a continuous basis and not just when it is politically appropriate in terms of elections.  My impression is that while Biden disagreed with Netanyahu, he was unable to change the war policies, whereas Trump has given unqualified support to Netanyahu and has been intermittent in pressing for a settlement.  Now, in the midst of a crisis of starvation in Gaze, Trump makes public statements about the need for assistance, but without comment on the military policies of Netanyahu which produced the humanitarian crisis.  This is also unfortunate in that while the current warfare works against a solution, it would appear that in 2025 there are more Arab states open to a settlement than in many years. 

2. Issues in the US

      In Part One, the point was made that Christians need to examine their own tradition and documents, as well as preaching and teaching, in order to determine whether there is an anti-Jewish bias. The point is worth repeating. This is something Christians should do in order to change the way Christians think about Jews. It is the basis for a comprehensive strategy of living with Jews in peace. It is not enough to show remorse and sympathy when violence occurs against Jews and places of worship.  Before dealing with public crises we need to have in place a culture of friendship and trust.   

      If Paul wrote in a time when Christians were the minority with respect to both Jews and Gentiles, today we find that Christians far outnumber Jews in the US.  Given that, it is appropriate to emphasize the need for Christians, as citizens, to ask how government and other institutions can protect the Jewish communities.  Living in peace does require some restraint of those intending ill will.

      Another issue is evangelization of Jews.  In light of the long history of tensions, the tragedies of the 20th century as well as the current problems, I think it is inappropriate to sanction programs to evangelize Jews.  To seek to convert Jews to Christianity is to take away their tradition and identity as Jews.  If we are to live in peace and wait for God to resolve the differences between the two covenants, then we should not threaten families and synagogues with the loss of members to Christian churches. 

      Finally, if we are to live in peace, then we might consider simple acts of religious friendship: we ought to pray for Jews; engage in celebrations together (e.g., Thanksgiving), learn to listen to our Jewish neighbors, and as Rabbi Soloveitchick has proposed, share in discussing humanitarian concerns.

3. The current war in Gaza          

      The attack of Oc. 7, 2023 by Hamas involved a campaign of terror which included murder, rape and destruction of communities.  Over 2000 Israelis were killed and around 250 were taken hostage.  Some hostages have been return, but not all, and some have died while held prisoner.  Netanyahu responded with a general military response leading to over 60,000 dead and the destruction of much of Gaza. The food supply has been interrupted and reports of starvation and lack of medical care appear each day.

      Given the brutality of this attack against Gaza, it has been very difficult to talk about this war.  Any expression of sympathy for the people living in Gaza, as well as charges of genocide against Israel, prompt charges of lack of support for Israel and antisemitism.  By contrast, support of Israel’s military strategies is criticized for being blind to the horrors of this war and enabling the war to continue.  The immediate needs, however, are a ceasefire and enabling food supplies to reach Gaza.

       In this situation I would prefer to keep separate Mr. Netanyahu’s military strategies from the State of Israel.  In the United States it is assumed that one may criticize a president and still be a loyal American.  War is a strategy which must be chosen from many military and political options, in light of consequences and goals.

      The first problem with Netanyahu’s military strategy is the difference between the harm done on Oct. 7 and the effects of the war in Gaza since then.  Not only are the consequences disproportionate, it must be asked how high must the death count go before enough is enough.   Some would dismiss this question by referring to the fact that all war is horrible and compare the damage in Gaza to that of other wars; where the US has engaged in examples of indiscriminate killing of civilians.  But such a reference does not justify more examples of this.  The bombing of German cities in WWII, which has come under serious criticism both from the perspective of whether it was effective as well as whether it was moral.  Nor is it effective to argue that the bombing of Gaza is justified because Hamas uses civilians and hospitals as shields.  But that assumes the strategy of bombing civilians is the only alternative.  If we declare Hamas to be a terrorist organization, should we not be held to a higher standard?  If the bombing has not been enough to prompt a call for a ceasefire, certainly the current crisis of starvation should motivate the Netanyahu government to rethink the indiscriminate military campaign and allow the food and medical supplies to reach the people of Gaza. 

      The second problem is the lack of clarity regarding goals.  Upon taking office in 1996, Netanyahu rejected the idea of a Two State Solution.  It is also the case that Hamas has rejected it as well.  While the Two State Solution was never achieved and may be difficult to enact, endorsing it at least made clear that one recognizes the right of the other to be in Palestine.  Without it, one’s intentions are unknown.  This becomes important when we see the general destruction of buildings in Gaza as well as the crisis of starvation.  Without knowing what Netanyahu intends, it would appear that the goal is the annihilation of the Palestinians in Gaza, or at least their removal.  At the current rate of destruction, Gaza will become uninhabitable. Moreover, since both Netanyahu and Trump openly discussed the removal of the Palestinians from Gaza, there is a serious need for a clear statement of goals.

      The final issue that needs to be raised is the lack of American leadership in discussions for a ceasefire and ultimately a settlement.  The recent bombings of Iran also raise this question.  To be sure, there can be no peace in the region as long as Iran funds and encourages groups like Hamas or on its own seeks nuclear weapons.  But these matters cannot be settled solely by military force.  It is difficult to see how Iran will change its policies without initiatives from the US, Europe and Arab states. In that process, the US has usually taken a leadership role.  

      This two part essay started out with an interest on my part to talk to Christians about the relation of Christians and Jews. I was also concerned about the danger of making things worse by the way we speak about this very subject.  The discussion of Paul’s views in Romans 9-11 brought me to something which I can heartily affirm: God had created the covenant of Moses and has not abandoned the Jews: God has also created the covenant of Jesus as a message of peace to all nations.  In the comments offered her, I have tried to draw out the implications of this Pauline perspective.   

      Whether these comments are helpful is not for me to say. I have tried to stay within the perspective provided by Paul: God intends Christians and Jews to live in peace.  By extension I think this must include Muslim neighbors.  Many things have not been addressed.  I do not think it helpful to raise the question of genocide, since such a category only enflames passions.  Nor is the discussion aided by rejecting all comment on the war as antisemitic.  It also needs to be noted that behind the Pauline perspective are the traditions which Christians share with Jews regarding the sanctity of life, the need for justice and the ultimate goal of peace.  Paul clearly speaks from within those traditions, namely, that God intends us to live in peace.  History has demonstrated that while military action may be necessary in the cause of peace, such action alone cannot generate a ceasefire or a settlement for the long term. 

Christians and Jews: Part I

By

On August 7, 2025

In Love, The Church, Theology

      Israel and matters relating to Jews and Christians are in the news: There is the war between Israel and Gaza, the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, Israel’s strikes on enemies in the region and debates in the US regarding antisemitism.  In recent days two writers in the New York Times have made impassioned pleas for us to re-think matters: David Brooks thinks that in spite of many problems with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s policies, we ought to support his attempt to eliminate Iran’s efforts at building nuclear weapons (6/26/2025); Bret Stephens thinks it is incorrect and morally wrong to speak of Israel’s war in Gaza as genocide (7/23/2025).

      I suspect you have opinions on these matters, as do I, and want to get right at them.  But before I do that I need to be clear about my perspective, which only raises a very serious issue: can we talk about our perspectives or the specific issues without making things worse?  I realize it may seem indecisive to do this while wars rage.  Nevertheless, the stakes are so high that I think it is necessary.  So I offer an essay in two parts: the first on finding a point of view; the second on what it might mean on the hot topics.

                                                                  Part I.

                  Christians and Jews: Finding a Perspective Without Making Things Worse

      How do Christians see their relation to Jews? To get at this topic I want to examine Paul’s view in Romans 9-11.  This is a major text in the New Testament for Christians on this subject.  Two things are of interest: first, the way Paul speaks of the positive bonds between Christians and Jews and second, the great difficulties Paul has in talking about this very subject.    

Paul’s View:

      Let us begin by reviewing the crisis at the small and struggling church in Rome.  The issue is the relation of Christians and Jews, given their disagreement over whether Jesus is the Messiah, with the Christians claiming that salvation is by grace received by faith. The debate is complicated because it involves Jews, Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.

At stake are questions like: does faith in Jesus bring with it Jewish traditions and the Law? If Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, should Christians reject Jews?  What about God: Has God rejected those who reject Jesus.  In other words, what is the relation of Christians to Jews?  Things have heated up and there is serious anger and division.

      All this leaves Paul in a conflicted state: as a devout Jew he had joined in the persecution of Christians, resulting in the death of Stephen. Now, he is convinced that God has called him to a mission to the Gentiles while still affirming the legitimacy of Israel in God’s plan of salvation.  So he states repeatedly that God has not rejected the Jews.  The promises to Israel still stand: Israel is God’s people, a light and blessing to the nations and God will not abandon them.  In Christ, God creates a new covenant as a mission to the Gentiles.  The covenant of Moses and the covenant of Jesus are two parts of God’s gracious work of salvation.

      Paul wants to make peace between these divided factions.  By the looks of his message, it appears that he thinks this is possible only if he deals with major and minor issues. But it is very hard to follow his train of thought.  While Jews might understand some of the references to the history of Israel, it is not clear how such appeals will be received by Gentiles.  But he is convinced, based on his conversion and call to a mission to the Gentiles, that God intends both Jews and Christians to live in peace.  This general message is based on three arguments, which I have summarized:

      The first is to neutralize some of the claims the two sides are using which might suggest advantage or superiority. So he wants to undercut the possibility of either side boasting about moral or cultic claims. To do this he offers an extended argument that all have sinned and neither can claim advantage.

      The second argument begins with reminding the readers that Abraham was declared righteous by faith in the promise of God.  Since Abraham lived prior to the Mosaic covenant and the Law, his salvation was not based on the Law or any kind of works of the Law, but on faith in the promise of grace. Given this standard, Paul makes a bold move:  the Covenant of Moses and the Law must be interpreted by grace, which is also to say that the Law cannot be fulfilled by works, but by faith. (9:30-32)  Once this point is made, Paul can remind us of what was said in chapters 3 and 5; namely, that while we were sinners, Christ died for us.  This is the sign that God creates a means to reconcile us to God.  Thus, like the Mosaic covenant, the covenant of Jesus offers salvation by grace and not any claim to human achievement.  As a result, faith in the grace of God is the ground of salvation for both groups, as expressed in two covenants of grace.

      Third, if God has not rejected the covenant with Israel or the Law, and if both Jews and Christians rely upon the mercy of God, the two covenants should exist side by side until God shall reconcile all in a future time. Christians are to accept the presence of Israel as God’s people while continuing their mission to the Gentiles.  Both are called to wait peacefully for the final reconciliation.

       If Paul’s answer is that God has initiated a new covenant for the inclusion of Gentiles, but retains the covenant with Israel, then it is necessary for Christians to affirm this without qualification.  Such affirmation would begin with a rigorous examination of our Scripture, teaching and preaching so as to develop ways to deal best with antisemitic language.  But equally important is the task of waiting for God to resolve the tensions between Christians and Jews. Paul’s mandate is for us to live in peace, side by side, and wait for our reconciliation by the mercy of God.

The Problem of Troublesome Baggage

      But waiting is hard to do, as we say and do things which often only make things worse.  One reason for choosing a passage from Paul is that while it gives us his positive view, it also contains troublesome baggage. In style, Rom. 9-11 presents a challenge.  Instead of a closely argued theme, moving forward step by step, things move back and forth in a somewhat haphazard fashion.  Is he trying out all kinds of ideas in hope one or more will work?  It is very difficult to sort out all the major and minor themes and fit them into a coherent argument.  But beyond style, the larger issue is that in seeking to balance things between competing groups, Paul ends up saying things that are damaging to Jews.  When they are taken out of context centuries later, they can be seen as supporting hostile language and/or actions against Jews.  I think Paul’s answer may in fact help us in our times, but to use it we are going to have to deal with the negative baggage tied to the answer. 

      Paul is speaking to Jews and Christians in Rome in the first century.  This is no time for easy answers.  He wants an answer he can live with if faced by Jews, Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. There is a No and Yes spoken to both sides; neither side wins everything, neither side is destroyed, both sides are affirmed.  Consider some of the judgments he makes regarding Jews:

      >Israel has stumbled (9:32), but not fallen. (11:11)

      >Israel has rejected the new work of God, but God has not rejected Israel. (11:1)

      >God has hardened the hearts of Israel until the Gentiles are saved, but all of Israel shall be saved (11:25-26).

      > “As regards to the gospel, they (the Israelites) are enemies of God, for your sake, but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers, for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (11:28)

      It is tempting to seize the word paradox to explain this complicated style, but that does not seem to fit.  Paul is not talking about seemingly contradictory ideas but an actual struggle—verbal and violent—between two groups.  Israel exists, Israel appears to reject the new covenant in Jesus, Christians exist, and Christians are asking whether they and/or God need the Jews.  I would prefer to describe these chapters as qualified speech.  Every statement about one side must be qualified by another statement, every statement stands in tension with another.  The word contingent also comes to mind.  Each statement may not be isolated or held up as the answer, since it depends on another which sheds light on the matter. 

      All this is extremely important when we turn to the most harsh and damaging language regarding Israel being an enemy of God.  On the one hand, here we have Paul’s qualified speech.  In the context of this very bitter debate, Jews appear as enemies of what God is doing, but are also beloved and their calling is irrevocable.  The word enemies applies only in the context of the current debate where the two sides are opposing one another.  He seems to want to concede to the angry Christians that Jews are indeed opposing the gospel. But then he qualifies this harsh comment by reference to God’s election of the Jews and how God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable.

      On the other hand, it is shocking that Paul would introduce such hostile language in the very text where he wants to de-escalate the tensions. It is also disturbing that in his attempt to qualify everything and criticize both sides equally, he does not refer to the Christians as enemies of God for wanting to reject Israel and the covenants. In all this we are confronted with the fact that Paul’s attempt to discuss the central difference between Jews and Christians and make peace may have aroused even more hostility among the Christians.

      It is at this point that I want to introduce a proposal made by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik in 1964.  Given the fact that it is so difficult for Christians and Jews to talk about the basic doctrinal points of view in each tradition, he proposed that the two groups not discuss them, but confine their discussions to matters of humanitarian concern.  Such a proposal flies in the face of our assumption that peace starts with face to face discussions over central issues.  But the fact is that the history of Christian-Jewish relations demonstrates that how we talk about what divides us affects how we live with one another.  And this has too often involved anger and violence.

      Why is this?  I fear it is precisely because the disagreements involve our most heartfelt beliefs, which increases the potential for rhetoric which wounds rather than heals.  In all discussions is the fact that one side claims Jesus as the Messiah and the other does not.  Add to this the fact that it is a familial matter. Christians have adopted the history of Israel with its promise of a Messiah.    In general one does not get excited about some unknown person on the other side of the world disagreeing with you.  But when your parents, brothers and sisters, or another branch of the family rejects what you say, that arouses passions.  For rejection to come from those close is threatening. This would tend to support Rabbi Soloveitchik’s proposal: we are too close to one another to discuss things dispassionately.

      But there is even another dimension to the problem we face:  Even when a writer with ties to both sides tries to make peace, things can become very problematic.  This is evident in Rom. 9-11 and it is distressing to admit it.  But how are we going to limit the damage?  Shall we, for example, use that traditional method of dealing with troublesome texts: just ignore Rom. 9-11.  For example, some Protestants ignored the Letter to James because it did not appear to be compatible with their theology.  Others have ignored the Book of Revelation because of its apocalyptic themes. Ignoring Romans 9-11 will be hard to do because Romans has been seen as a foundational text for most Protestants. Also, for some 60 years some have argued that the whole point of Romans is not to justify Luther’s principle of justification by faith, but to address the issue of Jews and Christians and the mission to the Gentiles.  If that is the case, then we are going to have to read, teach and preach about Romans 9-11 in a twofold way: to affirm Paul’s conviction that God affirms both that the covenant of Moses and the covenant of Jesus are to exist side by side in peace, and at the same time remind ourselves how easy it is to violate the mandate for peace by using harmful and hostile language.  In effect, this would mean that we take Paul’s admonition to affirm two covenants and live in peace as reason to avoid relying on some of the divisive things included in the argument.  Paul’s admonition is to wait peacefully.  But that is hard to do.  It would appear that we prefer to divide and justify such action by righteous language overflowing with anger.  We seem to prefer immediate plans to resolve tensions, even to the point of violence.  But such actions overstep and mislead us in the direction of permanent divisions and warfare.

      I am not ready to say that religious divisions inevitably lead to hostile and violent action, though given our history I have to admit that Rabbi Soloveitchik’s proposal is supported by our history.  This does not mean we can or should do nothing.  For one thing, our situation is very different from Paul’s.  Since Christians are a majority and Jews a minority in our country, Christians ought to take seriously the obligation to protect Jews (and other religious minorities—even Palestinians.)    We might even consider going beyond that: we could pray for one another and repent of that certainty which brims over with hostile language and makes us think that we are the ones to resolve the tensions.  While we wait, it might be well to do some listening.  If one cannot find reason to do any of these things based on Romans 9-11, then I recommend that you simply go back to Scripture which commands us to love one another.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén