World Council of Churches
Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches
Reformed Churches Bern-Jura-Solothurn

Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum (PIEF)

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL CONFERENCE
“Promised Land”

Church Center Bürenpark, Bern, Switzerland
10 - 14 September 2008 

The Church and Israel - A Dutch Perspective

Prof. Dr Leo J. Koffeman
Protestant Theological University, the Netherlands

PDF version for downloads

I have been invited to present the position of my church, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, on the theological questions regarding the relationship between the church and Israel. Last April the general synod of my church adopted a lengthy memorandum on The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in the Context of the Arab World of the Middle East. This memorandum includes a chapter with such theological considerations.[1] 

One preliminary remark should be made in order to prevent misunderstanding. I will focus on “the church and Israel”, but the memorandum also includes lengthy considerations on international law and human rights, leading to this conclusion: “The church regards (international) law and human rights as set out in international treaties as the primary point of reference for reaching a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” In addition, the memorandum includes paragraphs on ecumenical relationships with the churches in Palestine, on inter-religious aspects and on diaconal responsibilities. So what I am going to say about the church and Israel should not be misunderstood as simply one-sided support for the Israeli or Jewish position.  

From a theological perspective the way my church understands its relation with the Jewish people is reflected in the first article of its constitution. In its seventh paragraph we read this theological and confessional statement:  

The church is called to give expression to its unrelinquishable solidarity [or bond] with the Jewish people. As a Christ-confessing community of faith it seeks a dialogue with the Jewish people concerning the understanding of holy scripture, in particular as regards the coming of the kingdom of God. 

This statement speaks about a calling of the church—in the wider framework of the vocation of the church—in this way identifying a basic responsibility which is supposed to be part and parcel of its identity as a church. 

The expression “unrelinquishable solidarity [or bond]”, quite uncommon in English, reflects a quite uncommon Dutch expression (onopgeefbare verbondenheid) with two implications. First, the church’s relation to Israel is not a matter of choice, but a matter of destiny and calling: it reflects a theological recognition of the way the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Father of Jesus Christ, deals with his people as present in both the Jewish people and the church. Secondly, therefore, the church is not free to “relinquish” or sever this bond. It is “unrelinquishable”. 

The original Dutch text speaks of solidarity with “the people of Israel”. Our English translation prefers “the Jewish people” for obvious reasons. In the Dutch theological tradition, “Israel” has been a well-known term for the Jewish people for centuries, long before the coming into being of the state of Israel. Someone who is not aware of that might easily misunderstand our constitution, supposing that without any nuance it speaks about solidarity with “the people of the state of Israel”. This is not the case. I will come back to this. 

The constitution affirms that it is (part of) the calling of the church “to give expression to” this solidarity with the Jewish people. In the ordinances or bye-laws of the church this is specified in a number of tasks:

·        fostering biblical theological research on these questions

·        deepening our theological understanding of God’s way with Israel

·        dialogue or conversations with the Jewish people

·        analyzing and combating anti-Semitism

·        promoting attention to Jewish members of the church

As the constitution says, the church is supposed to do so “as a Christ-confessing community of faith”: its relation to the Jewish people is in no way supposed to jeopardize its basic confession of Jesus Christ as our Lord, and—even more—in its dialogue with the Jewish people it is in no way supposed to leave this confession out of discussion.

On the contrary, indeed, as paragraph 4.3. of the memorandum says. It starts from the theological statement that the uniqueness of the bond with the Jewish people is directly related to confessing Jesus as the messiah of Israel. The Jewish people is the firstborn among those who—through Christ and through tanakh (the Old Testament)—are children of God. In biblical terms the firstborn has a unique responsibility to represent the father. This place of Israel in the family and history of nations has never been revoked. God’s faithfulness cannot be terminated. This brings the church in an asymmetrical relationship with the Jewish people. They themselves don’t see a need to accept it, but the church, the community of “fellow-citizens with the saints” (Eph. 2:19) cannot deny this bond.

A pivotal question in our debate in synod has been: how exactly is what we call “the people of Israel” or “the Jewish people” related to the state of Israel as a political reality in the context of the Middle East? First of all, the memorandum explicitly rejects Christian-Zionist interpretations of scripture. There is a short but decisive sentence in the memorandum: “The church respects the way in which Israel understands itself.” Let me try to give some comments on this statement. 

First of all, this is a basic requirement of any dialogue. As a Protestant theologian I have participated in national and international dialogues with the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, I have my own views of Roman Catholicism, but dialogue is only possible if I am willing to respect the way my dialogue partner understands himself. In an open and fruitful dialogue room may be found to question that self-understanding, but only on a basis of mutual respect.

Secondly, it is a matter of fact that for many in the Jewish community throughout the world, the state of Israel being a Jewish state is part of their Jewish identity; for many others, however, it is not. So “the way in which Israel understands itself” and, more to the point, the way the state of Israel is or is not part of that self-understanding or identity, is a matter of debate. Again, this is not surprising. Group identities are rarely crystal clear. What about the identity of “Christianity”, “the Swiss Reformed community”, or the population of Bern? To be more specific: if, for instance, I engage in ecumenical dialogue with the Anglican Church, I have to be aware of and to respect the fact that the Anglican Church seems to have a specific view of its identity in terms of its relation to the English nation and state.

It is a matter of fact that an internal debate is going on within the Jewish people on how religion, language, culture, ethnicity and political views are mutually related in defining the identity of the Jewish people. The church is not entitled to make final judgments here. When she did so in history, it often had horrible consequences.

So, “Israel” as mentioned in our church order does not coincide with the state of Israel but cannot be separated from it either. It is not only about the Jews presently living in our midst outside this state, but it also about the Israel of scripture and tradition. All together it is a very broad and multifaceted entity.

Undoubtedly this theological position is a fruit of historical experiences in our context. The Holocaust has made us aware of a dark side of Christianity, not only in the 20th century, but down through the ages. Denying God’s faithfulness to Israel has had dramatic consequences, at least in Europe. This is where we speak of “substitution (or replacement, or supersessionist) theology”, i.e. a theology that says that the church simply replaced the Jewish people as the heir of God’s promises. From that perspective the new covenant replaces the old, baptism replaces circumcision, the gospel takes the place of the law, etc.

There is another important aspect to this. As the church order says, the dialogue with the Jewish people focuses on the understanding of holy scripture, in particular as regards the coming of the kingdom of God. These words directly refer to the way the Jewish people are mentioned in the opening article of the constitution where it says that the church, “sharing in the expectation granted to Israel, looks forward to the arrival of the kingdom of God”.

In my view the basic theological question here is this: how exactly do we relate the history of God’s covenant—with the Jewish people and with the church of Jesus Christ—to the universality of God’s love? And how can the biblical category of the kingdom of God play a role here?

The expectation of the kingdom of God cannot be separated from the promises to and the hope of Israel. Again, we see both in Judaism and Christianity a wide range of expectations and eschatological views. Jews pray for the coming of the messianic future, and many of them do so on a daily basis. Returning to the land is an integral aspect of these expectations. No wonder that the foundation of a Jewish state has been linked with them. The Protestant Church in the Netherlands cannot fully separate this from God’s faithfulness to his people, but this does not give a theological ground to legitimizing any specific Israeli policy over against the Palestine people.

From this perspective of “sharing in the expectation granted to Israel” and “looking forward to the arrival of the kingdom of God”, we can also address the questions of justice and peace. Justice and peace are core values of the kingdom of God. However, we have to avoid two pitfalls here. One is that we suggest that God’s faithfulness depends on the way the Jewish people behave. This would be against the very heart of both tanakh and the gospel. The second is that we require the Jewish people to live up to the standards of justice and peace rather than doing so ourselves.

“Giving expression to the unrelinquishable bond of the church with the Jewish people” is not meant to deny the responsibility of the church regarding justice and peace. As I said before, the memorandum also says: “The church regards (international) law and human rights as set out in international treaties as the primary point of reference for reaching a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”