Abstract
Lindbeck comes in his later work to critique the idea that the church fulfills Israel. He instead argues that Jesus is Israel’s only fulfillment. He makes this argument alongside a discussion of the need to understand Jesus as the Christ in light of the Old Testament, to see Jesus as savior first and example second, and to discuss atonement and justification together. Discussing all these aspects, the chapter concludes with a brief discussion of eschatology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Jenson , “Christ as Culture 1,” 181.
- 2.
Mike Higton , “Frei ’s Christology and Lindbeck’s Cultural-Linguistic Theory,” Scottish Journal of Theology 50, no. 1 (1997): 95.
- 3.
Ibid., 83.
- 4.
Ibid., 86.
- 5.
Ibid., 94.
- 6.
Mike Higton , “Reconstructing the Nature of Doctrine,” Modern Theology 30, no. 1 (January 2014): 30n98.
- 7.
Ibid., 30.
- 8.
Ibid., 16.
- 9.
Lindbeck, “Ecumenical Imperatives for the 21st Century,” 365.
- 10.
George Lindbeck, “Messiahship and Incarnation: Particularity and Universality Are Reconciled,” in Who Do You Say That I Am? Confessing the Mystery of Christ, ed. John C. Cavadini and Laura Holt (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), 63.
- 11.
Ibid., 64.
- 12.
Ibid.
- 13.
Ibid., 64–65.
- 14.
Ibid., 68.
- 15.
Ibid., 69.
- 16.
Ibid., 71.
- 17.
Ibid., 73–74.
- 18.
Ibid., 72.
- 19.
Ibid.
- 20.
Ibid., 74.
- 21.
Ibid.
- 22.
Ibid., 77–80.
- 23.
ND, 80.
- 24.
Ibid.
- 25.
Ibid.
- 26.
George Lindbeck, “Doctrine in Christianity: A Comparison with Judaism ” (presented at the American Theological Society Meeting, Princeton, NJ, April 25, 1987), 14.
- 27.
ND, 81.
- 28.
Lindbeck, “Doctrine in Christianity,” 14. Lindbeck later says, “I am one of those who find it difficult to think of the christological and trinitarian developments which led to Nicea and Chalcedon as an intellectualization of Christianity, as a matter of turning it into a religion of ideas rather than of worship and conduct” (17).
- 29.
ND, 81.
- 30.
Lindbeck, “Messiahship and Incarnation,” 82.
- 31.
Ibid., 81. Lindbeck credits Kendall Soulen for this understanding of Bonhoeffer (86n23). See The God of Israel and Christian Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 17–18.
- 32.
Lindbeck, “Messiahship and Incarnation,” 81.
- 33.
Ibid. Lindbeck thus concludes that the Old Testament “is not sufficient in itself. Although it is now an indispensable guide to the reading of what for the first Christians was their only Bible, it is incapable of being rightly construed as an independent body of writings.”
- 34.
Lindbeck, “Scripture, Consensus, and Community,” 75–76.
- 35.
ND, 67.
- 36.
FRCT, 70. See also Frei , The Identity of Jesus Christ, 131, 138, 148.
- 37.
Lindbeck, “Scripture, Consensus, and Community,” 75–76.
- 38.
Richard B. Hays , Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (London: SPCK, 2014), 4.
- 39.
ND, 67.
- 40.
Lindbeck, “Scripture, Consensus, and Community,” 75–76.
- 41.
FRCT, 70.
- 42.
Lindbeck, “A Protestant View of the Ecclesiological Status of the Roman Catholic Church,” 259.
- 43.
Lindbeck, “The Church,” 187.
- 44.
Lindbeck, “The Story-Shaped Church,” 166. See also Lindbeck, “The Church,” 184; Lindbeck, “Messiahship and Incarnation,” 82.
- 45.
Lindbeck, “The Story-Shaped Church,” 166.
- 46.
Lindbeck, “The Gospel’s Uniqueness,” 434–435.
- 47.
Lindbeck, “Atonement & The Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment,” 231. See George Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement: An Ecumenical Trajectory,” in By Faith Alone: Essays on Justification in Honor of Gerhard O. Forde, ed. Joseph A. Burgess and Marc Kolden (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 211.
- 48.
Lindbeck, “Atonement & The Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment,” 231. See Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 211.
- 49.
Lindbeck, “Atonement & The Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment,” 231. See Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 212.
- 50.
Lindbeck, “Atonement & The Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment,” 232.
- 51.
Ibid.
- 52.
Ibid.
- 53.
Ibid., 233–235; Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 205–206. Lindbeck uses the term “Anselmian” or “Anselmic” to differentiate later views of the atonement that build in certain ways upon Anselm’s work from Anselm’s own views. He, in fact, refers to penal substitution as a distortion of Anselm’s views.
- 54.
Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 205.
- 55.
As cited in Ibid. Lindbeck also notes that this distaste for satisfaction and/or penal substitution is not unique to the modern period, but can be seen in Peter Abelard’s work in the Middle Ages.
- 56.
Lindbeck, “Atonement & The Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment,” 236; Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 207.
- 57.
Lindbeck, “Atonement & The Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment,” 236. See also Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 208.
- 58.
Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 208. Lindbeck says, “The attempt to replace the medieval Western emphasis on Christ as victim with the patristic stress on Christ as victor has failed on the popular level.”
- 59.
Lindbeck, “Atonement & The Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment,” 237.
- 60.
Ibid.
- 61.
Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 209. See also Lindbeck, “Atonement & The Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment,” 237.
- 62.
Martin Luther , “A Brief Instruction on What to Look for and Expect in the Gospels,” in Martin Luther ’s Basic Theological Writings, ed. Timothy F. Lull and William R. Russell, Third Edition. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012), 72.
- 63.
Ibid.
- 64.
Ibid., 72–73.
- 65.
Lindbeck, “Atonement & The Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment,” 237. See also Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 213.
- 66.
Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 213–214. See also Lindbeck, “Atonement & The Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment,” 238.
- 67.
Lindbeck, “Atonement & The Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment,” 238.
- 68.
Ibid.
- 69.
Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 210.
- 70.
Lindbeck, “Atonement & The Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment,” 238–239.
- 71.
Ibid., 240. He also clarifies this discussion, as well as what he elsewhere means by (un)translatability: “Adaptability to different audiences and contexts is more a matter of interpreting different cultural and historical worlds in the language of Scripture and tradition than of translating that language into contemporary conceptualities (as most modern theology has done, not despite itself, but as a matter of principle).” “Justification and Atonement,” 217.
- 72.
See Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson , eds., Christian Dogmatics: Volume Two (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1984). Lindbeck notes that elsewhere, Forde does make the connection between the two.
- 73.
Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 185, 187. Lindbeck sketches a history of this division on pages 192–204. Though he is critical of this division, Lindbeck still, in general, speaks positively of these modern ecumenical statements concerning justification , of which in some cases he is a contributor.
- 74.
Ibid., 185.
- 75.
Ibid.
- 76.
Ibid.
- 77.
Ibid., 186. Lindbeck says, “This pericoretic imagery makes it difficult to understand why justification was disputed and atonement was not.”
- 78.
Lindbeck, “Atonement & The Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment,” 221.
- 79.
Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 188.
- 80.
Ibid.
- 81.
See J.L. Austin, Philosophical Papers, ed. J.O. Ormson and G.J. Warnock, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 233–235; J.L. Austin, How to Do Things With Words, ed. J.O. Ormson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962).
- 82.
Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 188.
- 83.
Ibid., 189. This more positive assessment of theosis, and its use by the Finish school, is in marked contrast to Lindbeck’s earlier work. In 1967, Lindbeck said, “I am enough of a Lutheran to believe that the greatest thing on heaven and earth is the forgiveness of sins , and cannot help but read with dismay the offhand remarks, even of Catholic theologians with whom I am in great sympathy, to the effect that salvation is not simply a matter of the forgiveness of sins but rather of the divinization of man. Karl Rahner , for example, has said this, and in his case I am sure that what is involved is not so much a fundamental disagreement but rather what, from my point of view, is an extraordinarily limited use of the phrase ‘forgiveness of sins.’ The forgiveness of sins, after all, is the breaking down of the middle wall of partition between man and God, it is the reconciliation of humanity to God, it is their unification in personal love and communion. Surely, this is the essence of what is meant by divinization, and this, to be sure, is something with which Karl Rahner agrees.” “Ecumenism, Cosmic Redemption, and the Council,” 78.
- 84.
Lindbeck, “The Church,” 184; Lindbeck, “The Story-Shaped Church,” 166.
- 85.
Fred B. Craddock, Luke, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 1990, 184. Thanks to Rev. Dr. Herbie Miller for this reference.
- 86.
Martin Luther , “A Meditation on Christ’s Passion,” in Martin Luther ’s Basic Theological Writings, ed. Timothy F. Lull and William R. Russell, Third Edition (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012), 126.
- 87.
Ibid., 127. The editors note here, “Luther ’s attitude toward the Jews reflects common views in the late-medieval and early modern Europe society. And it finds occasional expression in his works. Relatively early his career, his position was one of benevolent hope of converting them to Christianity. This is reflected in this treatise, as well as in his That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew (1523), LW 45: 195–229. Over the years his position took a more violent turn, because of the refusal of the Jews to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. This is evidenced in his treatise of 1547, On the Jews and Their Lies, WA 53:(412) 417–552.” Thomas Kaufman argues that while Luther ’s view on the Jews did indeed shift, that he was not consistent in his speech about the Jews in the early period. Kaufman says that Luther stated “at roughly the same time that the Jews ‘crucified’ Christ; they deserved their misery. They had ‘always been Christ’s greatest enemy’ and would not grant that he was God, ‘enduring sin and death, but they continue to live in their sins.’” See Luther ’s Jews: A Journey into Anti-Semitism, trans. Lesley Sharpe and Jeremy Noakes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 47.
- 88.
Lindbeck, “Justification and Atonement,” 190.
- 89.
Ibid., 215.
- 90.
Eckerstorfer, “The One Church in the Postmodern World,” 406.
- 91.
Lindbeck, “Atonement & The Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment,” 238.
- 92.
ND, 131.
- 93.
Ibid.
- 94.
Rosemary Radford Ruether, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism. (New York: Seabury Press, 1974), 246.
- 95.
Ibid.
- 96.
Ibid., 248.
- 97.
Ibid., 249.
- 98.
Ibid. See also 256–257.
- 99.
Bader-Saye , Church and Israel After Christendom, 77–78. Bader-Saye comes to the conclusion that Ruether’s position is an “experiential-expressivist” one that “interprets Jesus as the paradigmatic expression of the experience of eschatological hope…. Ruether affirms that other paradigms, such as the Exodus, will provide the same symbolic and evocative function for other religions. Only when Christians will come to realize that Easter means the same thing as Exodus will they finally be able to end their anti-Jewish polemic. This construal, however, does no favors to the Jews, for it relativizes Jewish claims of chosenness just as much as it does Christian claims about Christ” (78).
- 100.
Ibid., 80. Ochs refers to Ruether’s position as “the prototypical response of liberal, modernist Christianity. Reiterating the Enlightenment argument, she concludes that Christology itself is the problem: since it necessarily engenders supersessionism , Christians are faced with the either-or choice of affirming classical Christology or freeing themselves of the evils of supersessionism.” Another Reformation , 2.
- 101.
David S. Yeago , “The Apostolic Faith Part II” (unpublished, n.d.), 121. Cited with permission from the author.
- 102.
Soulen , The God of Israel and Christian Theology, 165.
- 103.
Ibid., 175.
- 104.
Yeago , “The Apostolic Faith Part II,” 121n30.
- 105.
Ibid.
- 106.
Soulen , The God of Israel and Christian Theology, 176.
- 107.
Yeago , “The Apostolic Faith Part II,” 121n30.
- 108.
Bader-Saye , Church and Israel After Christendom, 83.
- 109.
Ibid.
- 110.
Soulen , The God of Israel and Christian Theology, 159.
- 111.
Bader-Saye , Church and Israel After Christendom, 83–84. In defense of Soulen , he does say in the preface of The God of Israel and Christian Theology, “Some readers may be tempted to judge the constructive part of the book according to whether it seeks to vindicate classical ecumenical affirmations in the areas of Trinity and christology. They will discover that I do not attempt to address that question in these pages. Instead I limit myself to the exposition of what I take to be the theologically more basic claim, namely, the God of Israel has acted in Jesus Christ for all. The proposal sketched here does provide, I think, a framework that can accommodate the truth of classical trinitarian and christological affirmations, but that is a claim I hope to develop elsewhere” (xi). Soulen does seek to explore these issues further in “Hallowed Be Thy Name! The Tetragrammaton and the Name of the Trinity,” in Jews and Christians: People of God, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 14–40 and The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity, Volume 1: Distinguishing the Voices (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brown, S.C. (2021). Jesus the Christ as Israel’s Only Fulfillment. In: George Lindbeck and The Israel of God. Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74757-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74757-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-74756-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-74757-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)