Читать книгу Paul Among the Gentiles: A "Radical" Reading of Romans - Jacob P. B. Mortensen - Страница 10

Franz Mussner was a Catholic New Testament scholar teaching at the University of Trier and Regensburg from 1952/53 to 1981. During the course of his teaching he came to the conclusion that a proper perception of Judaism was a key to understanding the New Testament texts. He also actively engaged in Jewish-Christian dialogues in the years following the Second World War. Franz Mussner is a predecessor to the radical perspective, arguing for a Sonderweg interpretation of Rom 11:25–27. Some scholars argue that the Sonderweg interpretation may also be designated a ‘two covenant’ theology.1 The reason for this is to be found in the emphasis on the continued legitimacy of Israel’s covenant with God after the coming of Christ, and, hence, a positive evaluation of Judaism. Rom 11:25–27 states that ‘a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the fullness of Gentiles has come in, and then [or in that way] all Israel will be saved. As it is written: Out of Zion will come the deliverer’. The Sonderweg interpretation more specifically argues that Israel will not be saved until the Second Coming of Christ. When Israel observes the Messiah descending to earth and hears the gospel proclaimed, she will respond to Christ and be converted.

Some scholars confuse the precise meaning of the Sonderweg by viewing the term as encompassing almost any distinction between the salvation of Israel and the salvation of believers in Christ.2 But there are at least two approaches to God’s salvation of Israel. The ‘two covenant’ solution maintains that Israel’s salvation bypasses Christ altogether. Scholars such as Krister Stendahl, John Gager, and Lloyd Gaston may be said to adopt this position.3 The other position works with a narrower definition of the Sonderweg solution, and argues that Jews will be saved through faith in Christ. However, this faith is engendered by the Second Coming of Christ, when he preaches the gospel to Israel on the final day. According to this interpretation, those who believe in Christ are saved in the ‘regular way’ (by believing in Christ), whereas Israel will be saved through a ‘special way’, a Sonderweg. Franz Mussner argues for this specific interpretation. Mussner also argues from the ‘conversion’ of Paul as a parallel to the conversion of Israel:4 Just as Paul became a Christian when Christ revealed himself to him on the road to Damascus, so all Israel will be saved when Christ reveals himself to Israel as the Messiah in his Second Coming on the final day. By arguing in this way, Mussner’s perception of Paul may be said to represent a ‘traditional’ Christian (Catholic) perception of Paul, but he has incorporated into this perception a positive presentation of Judaism and the salvation of Israel. Additionally, his post-Holocaust interest in Jewish–Christian dialogue may be said to be present in his interpretation of Paul, since Israel holds a special position, and has its own path to salvation. His idea that Israel holds a special position with regard to salvation, in Rom 9 to 11, makes it a predecessor to the radical perspective.

Although Krister Stendahl is often connected with the ‘two covenant’ solution, and therefore may be considered a predecessor to the radical perspective, the scholarly evidence is rather meagre. However, his background story may confirm his proclivity for a ‘two covenant’ solution. He was ordained in the Church of Sweden in 1944 as a Lutheran minister, and served as a parish priest and chaplain in Uppsala. In 1954 he received a doctorate at Uppsala University, and in that same year he went to Harvard Divinity School as a professor of New Testament studies. He returned to Sweden to serve as the Bishop of Stockholm from 1984 to 1988, but in the early 1990s he was a professor at Brandeis University. At Brandeis he helped to inaugurate a programme intended to enhance shared values among students of many religious backgrounds. From 1994 and onwards he became co-director of the Center for Religious Pluralism at the Shalom-Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. In his later years he did extensive work to promote interfaith relations, especially between Jews and Christians.

In his Final Account (1995), Stendahl writes that Paul does not conceive of Israel’s salvation with reference to Christ; when Paul writes that ‘all Israel will be saved’, he does not say, ‘Israel will accept Jesus Christ’.5 This point of Stendahl’s is rather convoluted, but it may be said to support a ‘two covenant’ interpretation. It may also be said to reflect a respect for Israel’s religio-ideological position, and their religious peculiarity. John Gager’s work is more outspoken in its support of a ‘two covenant’ solution.6 Gager maintains that the Jews will continue to be the people of God after the coming of Christ, and that Christ is the saviour exclusively of the Gentiles, not the Jews. Israel stands in a covenant relationship with God and enjoys a right standing with God because of God’s covenant faithfulness to them, as promised by the (Mosaic) law. Gager endorses E.P. Sanders’ concept of ‘covenantal nomism’,7 and he advocates an entirely positive picture of Judaism. This leads Gager to state that Paul never urged the Jews to accept Christ as their Messiah, nor did he condemn them for refusing to do so. And because Israel has been in a right standing with God since long before the Gentiles came into view, Gager reverses the meaning of the Sonderweg interpretation. According to Gager, Israel’s salvation was never in doubt. What Paul taught and preached was instead a ‘special way’ to salvation for Gentiles through Christ.8 The ‘original’ way was Israel’s remaining within its covenant relationship with God.