“To The Jew First”
A Biblical Analysis of the “Two Covenant” Theory of the Atonement

Joseph P. Gudel

In Paul’s letter to the Romans we find a graphic visual picture
painted for us by the apostle. Imagine for a moment, seeing
millions and millions of people, standing in a long line. They
are of different ages, male and female, some very young and others
being very old.

As you look at them you see that they are all carrying Bibles
under their arms or in their hands. Many of these Bibles
evidently are well-read, being marked and worn from usage.
Innumerable numbers of these people have large portions of their
Bibles memorized, some entire sections or books.

Imagine also that these people are very faithful in attending
church, worshiping regularly, tithing generously, being active in
both their churches and in their communities. Many, if not most
of these individuals live exemplary lives. And then, imagine
seeing these people - in a line that goes on and on as far as
the eye can see - all walking towards eternal judgment, going to
hell with Bibles in their hands!

This reflects, in a concise but graphic picture, what Paul
undoubtedly was experiencing as he wrote to the Christians and the
church in Rome. In an extremely personal and moving section he
speaks of his fellow Israelites, the Jewish people, in these
words. “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.
For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ
¹
for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of
Israel. Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the
Israelites is that they may be saved (Rom. 9:2-3; 10:1).

Questions Relating to Paul’s Message
Numerous questions exist today in the field of comparative
religions and missiology. This is especially true when it comes
to discussions concerning Christianity and Judaism.

Many Christian theologians today, as well as many different and
disparate Christian denominations, question the need to share the
gospel with Jewish people. In fact, many consider attempts to do
this as being insensitive and judgmental. Indicative of this is a
quote from Eric Gritsch in a publication of the Lutheran Council
in the USA, distributed by the ELCA. In it Gritsch states:
[T]here really is no need for any Christian mission to the
Jews. They are and remain the people of God, even if they do
not accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah. Why this is so
only God knows. Christians should concentrate their
missionary activities on those who do not yet belong to the
people of God, and they should court them with a holistic
witness in word and deed rather than with polemical argument
and cultural legislation. The long history of Christian
anti-Semitism calls for repentance, not triumphalist claims
of spiritual superiority. ¹

The claim that the Jewish people do not need to know and receive
Jesus as their Lord and Savior, as their Messiah, is an
extraordinary one. However, before summarily dismissing these
groups we should at least be conversant with what they are saying
and know why they are saying it. Thus before we examine the
biblical evidence for sharing the gospel with the Jewish people we
will first begin with an overview of what this “two covenant”²
theology is, its historical roots, and the reasons why so many
Jewish and Christian groups accept this today.

Franz Rosenzweig and the Origins of Two Covenant Theology
In virtually every historical work examining the factors which
have influenced modern Jewish-Christian relations, the person of
Franz Rosenzweig is discussed. Rosenzweig’s tenets were like the
proverbial boulder that began an avalanche. The boulder was an
idea, a hypothesis, that has created an avalanche in the history
of ideas, particularly in the history of religion. And just as
avalanches begin slowly, picking up speed, energy, and mass - so
too with Rosenzweig’s “two covenant” theory of atonement.
The two covenant theory, as it is commonly referred to today,
was first put forth by Franz Rosenzweig just after the First
World War in a work entitled The Star of Redemption. His theology
of the two covenants came about through a long series of
discussions with a friend of his, a Hebrew Christian philosopher
of religion, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy.

At one point Rosenzweig was on the verge of becoming a convert
to Christianity. Being raised in a largely assimilated Jewish
household, Rosenzweig decided to attended a Yom Kippur service
first, determining that “he would enter Christianity through
Judaism. Like the earliest Christians, he would only enter as a
Jew and not as a pagan.” ²

However, instead of becoming a Christian he became fascinated
with his religious roots. Concerning this Nahum Glatzer writes:
“What the day conveyed to him was that essential as a
mediator may³ be in the Christian experience, the Jew stands in no need of
mediation. God is near to man and desires his undeviated
devotion.”

The two covenant theory of salvation which Rosenzweig would
subsequently develop basically states that God has established two
different, but equally valid covenants, one with His people Israel
and the other with the Gentiles. The Covenant in Moses and the
Covenant in Jesus are complementary to each other.

Glatzer quotes Rosenzweig on this as follows:
Christianity acknowledges the God of the Jews, not as God but
as “the Father of Jesus Christ.” Christianity itself cleaves
to the “Lord” because it knows that the Father can be reached
only through him. . . . We are all wholly agreed as to what Christ
and his church mean to the world: no one can reach the Father save
through him. No one can reach the Father! But the situation is
quite different for one who does not have to reach the Father
because he is already with him. And this is true of the people of
Israel (though not of individual Jews). ⁴

And so there are two ways of salvation, one for the Jewish
people and another separate one for the Gentiles. Glatzer
continues, explaining Rosenzweig’s thought with the following
quotation from him: The synagogue, which is immortal but stands
with broken staff and bound eyes, must renounce all work in this
world, and muster all her strength to preserve her life and keep herself
untainted by life. And so she leaves the work in the world
to the church and recognizes the church as the salvation for
all heathens in all time. ⁵

Concerning this Rabbi Jakob J. Petuchowski stated: “Rosenzweig
conceded more than any Jew, while remaining a Jew, had conceded
before him. He admitted the truth of John 14:6.” This is
immediately qualified, though, by the assertion that “the Jew does
not have to come to the Father. He has been with the Father ever
since Sinai.” ⁶

Jewish Writers on the Two Covenant Theory
Neither time nor space will allow for an adequate survey of
Jewish writers on this. It must be sufficient to say that this
belief in two separate covenants is held very widely by many
Jewish people today. Arthur Gilbert states that
Judaism allows for religious pluralism and does not consider
it scandalous. . . . We do not believe that God’s plan for
salvation requires your conversion to Judaism nor mine to
Christianity. But it does require our cooperation, our
concern for, our joint effort to repair the world. ⁷
Leon Klenicki, formerly the associate director of the Department
of Interfaith Affairs of the Anti-Defamation League, expands on
this in an essay discussing Jewish-Christian dialogue.
The dialogue involves a process of meeting and recognition
between two faith communities, two experiences of God:
Christianity and Judaism. It is an encounter of subjects, not
faith, not objects of contempt, two equal testimonies to God.
For each partner it means the recognition of the other as a
constituent in God’s design, the acceptance of a different
approach to the Eternal, a different though not conflicting
spirituality. ⁸

Renowned orthodox rabbi Pinchas Lapide summarizes this new view
of co-equal and complementary faiths, living side-by-side
together: “We Jews and Christians are joined in brotherhood at
the deepest level . . . We are brothers in a manifold ‘elective
affinity.’” ⁹

Christians and the Two Covenant Theory
Just as with the Jewish people above, there are numerous
Christians who believe in a theology of two covenants. These
views are usually seen as coming from certain mainline
denominations, none of which have retained belief in the full
inerrancy and authority of the Bible.

For example, Carl Braaten writes:
Christianity is the Judaizing of the pagans. The task
of Christianity is to preach the gospel among the
Gentiles. . . . The task of Judaism meanwhile is to
remind Christianity of its original biblical roots. ¹⁰
Similarly, many Catholic theologians have taken the
pronouncements of Vatican II and Pope John Paul II’s Redemptoris
Missio (1991) to their logical conclusion, viz., that religious
dialogue with members of other religions is to replace actual
missionary efforts.

Former Christian considerations of Judaism (as well as of
other religions) encouraged proselytism. That is, Christians
believed it not only legitimate but praiseworthy to exert
economic, psychological, or spiritual pressure on
non- Christians in order to gain new members for the Church. The
diological position, however, is one in which the parties
accept one another as mutually equal partners. ¹¹

This position, however, also is increasingly being found among
Christians who accept and believe in the Bible as the Word of God.
For example, George Sheridan, who at the time was the East Coast
Regional Director for the Southern Baptist department of
Interfaith Witness, asserted that God’s bond with the Jewish
people was never superseded with the coming of Jesus: “The Jews of
today, as ever, receive salvation through their having been chosen
by God in covenant with Abraham, Moses, and the prophets. . . . My
position is that the Jews do not require evangelization.” ¹²

A Biblical Examination
At this point it is essential to return to Scripture and see if
there is any biblical foundation for a theology of two separate
(but equal?) covenants. I believe that even a cursory examination
will show us that there is not. In doing this we will look at
Jesus’ example, the practice of the apostles, and the practice of
Paul.

However, before looking at these, perhaps the best place to
begin our examination of two covenant theology is with Paul’s
opening declaration in Romans 1:16: “I am not ashamed of the
gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of
everyone who believes, first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.”
Many wonder why Paul would begin his message with an assertion
that he was not “ashamed of the gospel.” Different answers have
been shared on this, the most cogent - in my opinion - being
Franzmann’s.

Why should Paul speak, even negatively, of being ashamed of
the Gospel, which gives his life its content, purpose, and
direction? He is probably recalling Jesus’ words of warning,
“Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him will the Son
of man be ashamed when he comes in glory” (Luke 9:26).¹³
Concerning this, in his letter to young Timothy the Apostle Paul
writes: “For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a
spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline. So do not be
ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner”
(2 Tim. 1:7-8).⁷

But what did Paul mean when he stated that the gospel was the
power of God “for the salvation of everyone who believes?”
Perhaps an illustration will help us understand this more fully.
A number of years ago an evangelical attempt at piquing people’s
curiosity, and thus enabling Christians to share the Gospel
message with non-Christians, was developed by putting bumper
stickers on cars which simply said: “I Found It!” When people saw
this they were supposed to ask what it was that the driver
“found.” In response to this some Jewish groups countered with
their own bumper sticker which stated: “We Never Lost It!”
This is of course, the crux of the problem. Who is Jesus, and
how is one “saved”? I believe that for many, if not most,
Christians today the entire concept of our salvation has dulled.
That is, it is almost as if we take this for granted. The urgency
of our salvation and the unspeakable eternal consequences of being
cut off from God are not spoken of very often, or are not
understood very well.

This was not so with Paul’s readers. Franzmann picks this up and
summarizes it in these words. The word “salvation” is for us a worn coin;
for Paul and his readers, fresh from their Old Testament, it still had a sharp
image and a clear superscription. It meant radical
deliverance out of a desperate situation. What Israel had
experienced at the Red Sea, when all help was cut off before
and behind and only a vertical miracle from on high could save,
that was salvation. ¹⁴

The apostle continues in Romans 1:16, telling us that this
salvation message was “first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.”
There have been two main understandings or interpretations of what
Paul meant here by the term proton (English/first; Greek/πρωτον).
The first understanding or interpretation of this is that Paul
was merely referring to “first” in a chronological sense.

Concerning the usage of “first” and whether this meant that the
Jews have a “special preference in salvation” Nygren writes:
Does this after all mean that the Jew has special preference
in salvation? That cannot be what Paul means. The word may
refer to Israel’s special history. In that case their
priority is now abolished with the coming of Christ. “There
is neither Jew nor Greek.” All are one in Christ Jesus (Gal.
3:28). . . .Thus the priority of the Jew is abolished.¹⁵
Hodge echoes this, saying that Paul’s usage of “first” in this
verse “must have reference to time, ‘To the Jew in the first
instance, and then to the Greek.’” ¹⁶

The second understanding or interpretation of what Paul means
here is that “first” has reference not only chronologically, but
also in the sense of a “priority.” In Cranfield’s commentary on
Romans he explains this as a tension between the equality all
Christians have in common, and yet a special calling or place for
the Jew in God’s church.

The word τε . . . is suggestive of the fundamental equality of
Jew and Gentile in the face of the gospel (the gospel is the power
of God unto salvation for believing Jew and believing Gentile
alike), while the word prwton indicates that within the framework
of this basic equality there is a certain undeniable priority of
the Jew. In view of chapters nine to eleven it is hardly
admissible to explain this πρωτον as referring merely to the
historical fact that the gospel was preached to the Jews before it
was preached to the Gentiles. ¹⁷

Of great import here, Cranfield asserts, is Romans 11:29: “For
God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.”

Along with this verse, the theologians who believe that proton
refers to a priority will usually cite two other passages, Romans
2:9 and Acts 13:46. In Romans 2:9 Paul is referring to the coming
judgment, stating: “There will be trouble and distress for every
human being who does evil: first (πρωτον) for the Jew, then for
the Gentile.” I do not know of any commentators who exegete
“first” here in a temporal sense.

This exegesis is supported further when one looks at a number of
passages, especially at Acts 13:5-46. In this account Paul and
Barnabas enter the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, where Paul
eloquently shares the Gospel with the people gathered there
(13:13f.). When the Jewish people eventually reject the Gospel,
Paul and Barnabas respond very forthrightly: “We had to speak the
word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider
yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles”
(13:46, emphasis mine).

Christianity’s Core
As we have just seen, Christianity is - at its very core - a
missionary faith. Our command from the very beginning was to go
and “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them
to observe all things I have commanded you” (Matt.28:19-20).
Indeed, this is seen in Jesus’ very last words to us, as He
departed into heaven: “And you shall be witnesses to Me in
Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the
earth” (Acts 1:8).¹⁰

This command was taken literally, as the early church - after
Pentecost - turned Jerusalem upside-down. Concerning this David
Bosch writes:
Mass conversions of the Jews are again and again reported,
particularly of Jews in Jerusalem . . . but also of those in
the diaspora. There is, moreover, a clear progression in
these reports: in Acts 2:41, three thousand Jews are
converted; in 4:4 there are five thousand; in 5:14
“multitudes both of men and women” are added; in 6:7 the
number of disciples in Jerusalem has “multiplied greatly”; in
21:20 Paul is informed about “many thousands” . . . of
believing Jews. ¹⁸

We shall now turn and briefly observe this call to bring the
gospel to both Jews and Gentiles - as seen in Jesus’ example, the
practice of the apostles, and the practice of Paul.
Jesus and the Jewish People

In Jesus’ ministry we see numerous examples of how He came “to
the Jew first.” At the the very beginning of John’s gospel
account we are told that Jesus “came to His own, but his own did
not receive Him” (Jn. 1:11). He ministered to and among the
Jewish people (e.g., Matt. 4:23-25; 9:35; et al.).

It was only in unusual circumstances that Jesus ministered to
non-Jewish people (e.g., the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7 and
the Roman centurion’s servant in Matthew 8). The primary
principle was to go first to the people of Israel. Thus when
Jesus sent out the twelve apostles He told them: “Do not go among
the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to
the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6).

This command to go to the Jewish people is seen likewise in our
Lord’s commands after His resurrection. As before, the apostles
are to go out among the Jewish people with the message of
salvation in Jesus the Messiah. However, a new note is added.
That is, they also are to take this message beyond the confines of
the Jewish people and take it to the Gentiles as well. Their
command was, “beginning at Jerusalem,” to take the message out to
all people and to all nations, both to the Jew and to the Greek
(i.e., the Gentiles; cf., Luke 24:46-47; Matt. 28:18-20; Acts
1:8).

The Apostles and the Jewish People
I believe that we see in the practice of the apostles a paradigm
of missions for the entire church. In the very first preaching of
the gospel after Jesus’ departure we find the Apostle Peter boldly
proclaiming the good news of salvation, in the midst of a Jewish
audience. Acts 2:5 tells us that there were “Jews from every
nation” present when Peter shared the gospel message. And he
addressed his message specifically to the Jewish people: “Fellow
Jews and all you who live in Jerusalem . . . ,” and “Men of Israel
listen to this . . .” (2:14, 22f.). Furthermore he concluded his
message with the bold and challenging words: “Therefore let all
Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you
crucified, both Lord and Christ” (2:36). [Apparently, according
to our modern sensitivities, Peter was unaware that he was being
offensive to some of the Jewish people by telling them that they
needed to receive Jesus as their Lord and Messiah!]

This same pattern of preaching to the Jewish people is followed
consistently throughout the Book of Acts (e.g., the apostles with
Jewish people in the Temple in Acts 3:12-26; the apostles before
the “rulers, elders, and teachers of the Law” in Acts 4:8ff., with
a special emphasis on verses 10-12 [cf., Jn.14:6]; the apostles
before the “full Sanhedrin” in Acts 5:27ff.; Stephen before the
Sanhedrin in Acts 7; etc.).

It is not until Acts chapter ten that we find any attempt to
begin taking the gospel to anyone other than Jewish people, and
this took several miraculous interventions from God before it
occurred. And it was immediately following Peter’s bringing the
gospel to Cornelius and his household that he was criticized for
sharing the message of salvation with Gentiles!

The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that
the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised
believers criticized him. (Acts 11:1-2)

It was only very slowly, and reluctantly, that the early church
began fulfilling Jesus’ command to bring the gospel to people
other than Jews. Finally, after the great council of Jerusalem in
Acts 15, Paul, Barnabas, Judas and Silas were sent out with
instructions for the Gentile believers (Acts 15:19f.).

Paul and the Jewish People
Ironically, perhaps the supreme New Testament example of an
apostle bringing the news of Jesus Christ to Jewish people is from
the “apostle to the Gentiles,” Paul (Rom. 11:13). We saw above
the account of Paul and Barnabas entering into the synagogue in
Pisidian Antioch and sharing the Gospel with the Jewish people
there (Acts 13:5, 14-46). At their rejection of Jesus, Paul
responded: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since
you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal
life, we now turn to the Gentiles” (13:46).

Nonetheless, even as they took the gospel to the Gentiles their
normal methodology still was to bring the gospel to the Jewish
people first, before continuing on with the Gentiles. Thus we
find in Acts 14:1 the statement: “At Iconium Paul and Barnabas
went as usual into the Jewish synagogue.” Moreover, we are told
that they “spent considerable time there” (14:3).

Indeed, even before Paul’s ministry began, when he was still
blinded and fasting before the Lord, God told Ananias to go to
him, saying: “Go! This man is My chosen instrument to carry My
name before the Gentiles and their kings, and before the people of
Israel” (Acts 9:15, emphasis mine). And from the very beginning
Paul did take the gospel to the Jewish people first (e.g., Acts
9:20-22, 26-29; et al.). This continued and is seen throughout
his lifetime of ministry.

This is especially evident in his writings. First, he
emphasizes that apart from knowing their Messiah, the Jewish
people were cut off from God and from their covenant with Him. For
example, in his second letter to the Corinthians Paul writes:
We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face
to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance
was fading away.

But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same
veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been
removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.
Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their
hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the lord, the veil is taken
away. (2 Cor. 3:13-16)

And second, Paul continually asks that prayers be offered up for
the Jewish people, that they may repent and be brought back into a
relationship with God. That is, that they might receive Jesus as
their Lord and God, as their long-awaited Messiah.

This is seen especially in chapters nine through eleven of
Romans. In Romans 9:1-5 Paul eloquently writes of how the Jewish
people were elected by God in the past, and yet the adoption, the
covenants, the Law, the temple worship, and the promises were all
to no avail - for they rejected their own Messiah.

Paul again urges that prayers be made for them (apparently
unaware of any “two covenant” theory). “Brothers, my heart’s
desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be
saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God,
but their zeal is not based on knowledge” (Rom. 10:1-2).
He concludes that although the Jewish people are cut off for
now, that God still has plans for them. That is, that God has not
totally rejected them and that they would yet receive Jesus
(Romans 11).

Much more could be said concerning all of this, but that is not
within the purview of this paper. It is sufficient for our
purposes to see that throughout the entire New Testament we find
the Jewish people are always referred to as people who need to
know and receive Jesus Christ, in this manner no different than
any of the Gentiles.

A Concluding Biblical Rejoinder
As much as one might like to agree with those promulgating a
theology of two covenants, it simply is not a biblical doctrine.
Quite the contrary, it goes against everything that we find in the
New Testament relating to missions. In fact this is the
quintessential form of anti-Semitism, for in promoting this false
doctrine the only way of salvation is closed to the Jewish person
(Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12). Nothing could be more dangerous, racist,
or pernicious than this.

The Apostle Paul boldly affirmed: ”For I am not ashamed of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation
for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the
Greek” (Rom.1:16).

We are not to be ashamed of sharing the good news of the gospel
with anyone. And in that this good news came through the children
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and in that “salvation is of the
Jews” (Jn.4:22), this message was “for the Jew first.”
It seems that this is completely forgotten today. This gospel
of Jesus Christ was first and foremost to go to the Jews, and then
to the Gentiles. Christians owe a great debt to the Jews, for our
entire spiritual heritage is derived from them. Indeed, we have
been grafted into the olive tree of Israel, not the reverse (Rom.
11:11f.).¹⁶

Two Unanswered Questions: A Hypothesis
I close with two unanswered questions concerning the “two
covenant theory,” at least unanswered for those who believe in the
authority of God’s Word to lead us and guide us in all we believe
and teach.

I place these in the form of a hypothesis.
1) If the apostles and early church were called by God to bring
the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ to the people of
Israel, to share the person and work of the Jewish Messiah with
the Jews; then,
2) when was this call abrogated? And,
3) how do we know that it was abrogated, that is, by what
authority was this call to preach and evangelize terminated?
As far as I know these questions remain unanswered by proponents
of this theology, or at least unanswered from a biblical
perspective.

Stephen Neill eloquently sums up the task we face in attempting
to reach out to Jewish people with the good news of Jesus Christ.
Franz Rosenzweig suggested that the church has need of the
synagogue, if it is to be true to its vocation. The
Christian must ask for liberty to suggest to the Jew that the
synagogue has need of the church, if it is to find its own
true fulfillment. The suggestion must be made with the
utmost humility, with a full sense both of the wrongs for
which the church has been responsible in the past, and of the
admiration due to the amazing faithfulness with which the Jew
has clung to the God who has chosen him. All that he dare
ask is that the Jew will look again at Jesus Christ, without
hate and without prejudice, and consider whether there may
not be things in the picture that he has so far missed. ¹⁹

Sanford Mills, a Hebrew believer, eloquently summarizes the
other half of the problem we are facing today in attempting to
reach Jewish people with the gospel. “The sad part of it is this,
that many sincere Christians who do not believe that the Gospel is
to the Jew first, do not believe that the Gospel is for the Jew at
all!” ²⁰



END NOTES
1 Eric W. Gritsch, "Luther and the Jews: Toward a Judgment of
History," in Luther and the Jews (n.p.: Lutheran Council in the
USA, 1995), 9.
2 Arnold Betz, “Franz Rosenzweig: Essay and Exhibit”
(AOL:www.library.vanderbilt.edu/divinity/rosenzw/rosenbib.html:
1997), 3.
3 Nahum N. Glatzer, Franz Rosenzweig: His Life and Thought (New
York: Schocken Books, 1961), 162.
4 Franz Rosenzweig, in Glatzer, 341.
5 Ibid., 342.
6 Jakob J. Petuchowski, “The Christian-Jewish Dialog: A Jewish
View,” in Lutheran World, October, 1963, vol. 10, no. 4, 383.
7 Arthur Gilbert, "The Mission of the Jewish People in History and
in the Modern World," in Lutheran World, July, 1964, vol. 11,
no. 3, 308.
8 Leon Klenicki, “Jewish-Christian Dialogue,” in Leon Klenicki and
Geoffrey Wigoder, A Dictionary of the Jewish-Christian Dialogue
(New York:Paulist Press, 1984), 101-102.
9 Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House,1983), 2.
10 Carl E. Braaten, “The Resurrection in Jewish-Christian
Dialogue,” in Lapide, 19.
11 Celia Deutsch, “Jewish-Christian Dialogue,” in Leon Klenicki
and Geoffrey Wigoder,103.
12 George Sheridan, in Mitch Glaser, “Critique of the Two Covenant
18
Theory,” Mishkan: A Theological Forum on Jewish Evangelism, 1989,
vol. 11, no. 2, 45. Shortly after making this comment Sheridan
was removed from his position by Rev. Larry Lewis, the President
of the Southern Baptist Home Mission Board. Lewis explained this
by saying: “We must believe in Jesus Christ and accept Him as our
Lord and Savior. Someone who doesn’t hold that position shouldn’t
be in an evangelistic position for the Home Mission Board.”
(Glasser, 68)
13 Martin H. Franzmann, Concordia Commentary: Romans (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1968), 32.
14 Ibid., 33.
15 Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans, trans. Carl C. Rasmussen
(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949), 73.
16 Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New
York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1882), 43.
17 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans, Vol. I. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975),
91.
18 David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in
Theology of Mission (New York: Orbis Books, 1991), 96.
19 Stephen Neill, Christian Faith & Other Faiths (Downers Grove:
Intervarsity Press, 1984), 55.
20 Sanford Mills, A Hebrew Christian Looks at Romans (New
York:ABMJ Press, 1971), 37.

“To The Jew First”
A Biblical Analysis of the “Two Covenant” Theory of the Atonement

Joseph P. Gudel

In Paul’s letter to the Romans we find a graphic visual picture
painted for us by the apostle. Imagine for a moment, seeing
millions and millions of people, standing in a long line. They
are of different ages, male and female, some very young and others
being very old.

As you look at them you see that they are all carrying Bibles
under their arms or in their hands. Many of these Bibles
evidently are well-read, being marked and worn from usage.
Innumerable numbers of these people have large portions of their
Bibles memorized, some entire sections or books.

Imagine also that these people are very faithful in attending
church, worshiping regularly, tithing generously, being active in
both their churches and in their communities. Many, if not most
of these individuals live exemplary lives. And then, imagine
seeing these people - in a line that goes on and on as far as
the eye can see - all walking towards eternal judgment, going to
hell with Bibles in their hands!

This reflects, in a concise but graphic picture, what Paul
undoubtedly was experiencing as he wrote to the Christians and the
church in Rome. In an extremely personal and moving section he
speaks of his fellow Israelites, the Jewish people, in these
words. “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.
For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ
¹
for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of
Israel. Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the
Israelites is that they may be saved (Rom. 9:2-3; 10:1).

Questions Relating to Paul’s Message
Numerous questions exist today in the field of comparative
religions and missiology. This is especially true when it comes
to discussions concerning Christianity and Judaism.

Many Christian theologians today, as well as many different and
disparate Christian denominations, question the need to share the
gospel with Jewish people. In fact, many consider attempts to do
this as being insensitive and judgmental. Indicative of this is a
quote from Eric Gritsch in a publication of the Lutheran Council
in the USA, distributed by the ELCA. In it Gritsch states:
[T]here really is no need for any Christian mission to the
Jews. They are and remain the people of God, even if they do
not accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah. Why this is so
only God knows. Christians should concentrate their
missionary activities on those who do not yet belong to the
people of God, and they should court them with a holistic
witness in word and deed rather than with polemical argument
and cultural legislation. The long history of Christian
anti-Semitism calls for repentance, not triumphalist claims
of spiritual superiority. ¹

The claim that the Jewish people do not need to know and receive
Jesus as their Lord and Savior, as their Messiah, is an
extraordinary one. However, before summarily dismissing these
groups we should at least be conversant with what they are saying
and know why they are saying it. Thus before we examine the
biblical evidence for sharing the gospel with the Jewish people we
will first begin with an overview of what this “two covenant”²
theology is, its historical roots, and the reasons why so many
Jewish and Christian groups accept this today.

Franz Rosenzweig and the Origins of Two Covenant Theology
In virtually every historical work examining the factors which
have influenced modern Jewish-Christian relations, the person of
Franz Rosenzweig is discussed. Rosenzweig’s tenets were like the
proverbial boulder that began an avalanche. The boulder was an
idea, a hypothesis, that has created an avalanche in the history
of ideas, particularly in the history of religion. And just as
avalanches begin slowly, picking up speed, energy, and mass - so
too with Rosenzweig’s “two covenant” theory of atonement.
The two covenant theory, as it is commonly referred to today,
was first put forth by Franz Rosenzweig just after the First
World War in a work entitled The Star of Redemption. His theology
of the two covenants came about through a long series of
discussions with a friend of his, a Hebrew Christian philosopher
of religion, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy.

At one point Rosenzweig was on the verge of becoming a convert
to Christianity. Being raised in a largely assimilated Jewish
household, Rosenzweig decided to attended a Yom Kippur service
first, determining that “he would enter Christianity through
Judaism. Like the earliest Christians, he would only enter as a
Jew and not as a pagan.” ²

However, instead of becoming a Christian he became fascinated
with his religious roots. Concerning this Nahum Glatzer writes:
“What the day conveyed to him was that essential as a
mediator may³ be in the Christian experience, the Jew stands in no need of
mediation. God is near to man and desires his undeviated
devotion.”

The two covenant theory of salvation which Rosenzweig would
subsequently develop basically states that God has established two
different, but equally valid covenants, one with His people Israel
and the other with the Gentiles. The Covenant in Moses and the
Covenant in Jesus are complementary to each other.

Glatzer quotes Rosenzweig on this as follows:
Christianity acknowledges the God of the Jews, not as God but
as “the Father of Jesus Christ.” Christianity itself cleaves
to the “Lord” because it knows that the Father can be reached
only through him. . . . We are all wholly agreed as to what Christ
and his church mean to the world: no one can reach the Father save
through him. No one can reach the Father! But the situation is
quite different for one who does not have to reach the Father
because he is already with him. And this is true of the people of
Israel (though not of individual Jews). ⁴

And so there are two ways of salvation, one for the Jewish
people and another separate one for the Gentiles. Glatzer
continues, explaining Rosenzweig’s thought with the following
quotation from him: The synagogue, which is immortal but stands
with broken staff and bound eyes, must renounce all work in this
world, and muster all her strength to preserve her life and keep herself
untainted by life. And so she leaves the work in the world
to the church and recognizes the church as the salvation for
all heathens in all time. ⁵

Concerning this Rabbi Jakob J. Petuchowski stated: “Rosenzweig
conceded more than any Jew, while remaining a Jew, had conceded
before him. He admitted the truth of John 14:6.” This is
immediately qualified, though, by the assertion that “the Jew does
not have to come to the Father. He has been with the Father ever
since Sinai.” ⁶

Jewish Writers on the Two Covenant Theory
Neither time nor space will allow for an adequate survey of
Jewish writers on this. It must be sufficient to say that this
belief in two separate covenants is held very widely by many
Jewish people today. Arthur Gilbert states that
Judaism allows for religious pluralism and does not consider
it scandalous. . . . We do not believe that God’s plan for
salvation requires your conversion to Judaism nor mine to
Christianity. But it does require our cooperation, our
concern for, our joint effort to repair the world. ⁷
Leon Klenicki, formerly the associate director of the Department
of Interfaith Affairs of the Anti-Defamation League, expands on
this in an essay discussing Jewish-Christian dialogue.
The dialogue involves a process of meeting and recognition
between two faith communities, two experiences of God:
Christianity and Judaism. It is an encounter of subjects, not
faith, not objects of contempt, two equal testimonies to God.
For each partner it means the recognition of the other as a
constituent in God’s design, the acceptance of a different
approach to the Eternal, a different though not conflicting
spirituality. ⁸

Renowned orthodox rabbi Pinchas Lapide summarizes this new view
of co-equal and complementary faiths, living side-by-side
together: “We Jews and Christians are joined in brotherhood at
the deepest level . . . We are brothers in a manifold ‘elective
affinity.’” ⁹

Christians and the Two Covenant Theory
Just as with the Jewish people above, there are numerous
Christians who believe in a theology of two covenants. These
views are usually seen as coming from certain mainline
denominations, none of which have retained belief in the full
inerrancy and authority of the Bible.

For example, Carl Braaten writes:
Christianity is the Judaizing of the pagans. The task
of Christianity is to preach the gospel among the
Gentiles. . . . The task of Judaism meanwhile is to
remind Christianity of its original biblical roots. ¹⁰
Similarly, many Catholic theologians have taken the
pronouncements of Vatican II and Pope John Paul II’s Redemptoris
Missio (1991) to their logical conclusion, viz., that religious
dialogue with members of other religions is to replace actual
missionary efforts.

Former Christian considerations of Judaism (as well as of
other religions) encouraged proselytism. That is, Christians
believed it not only legitimate but praiseworthy to exert
economic, psychological, or spiritual pressure on
non- Christians in order to gain new members for the Church. The
diological position, however, is one in which the parties
accept one another as mutually equal partners. ¹¹

This position, however, also is increasingly being found among
Christians who accept and believe in the Bible as the Word of God.
For example, George Sheridan, who at the time was the East Coast
Regional Director for the Southern Baptist department of
Interfaith Witness, asserted that God’s bond with the Jewish
people was never superseded with the coming of Jesus: “The Jews of
today, as ever, receive salvation through their having been chosen
by God in covenant with Abraham, Moses, and the prophets. . . . My
position is that the Jews do not require evangelization.” ¹²

A Biblical Examination
At this point it is essential to return to Scripture and see if
there is any biblical foundation for a theology of two separate
(but equal?) covenants. I believe that even a cursory examination
will show us that there is not. In doing this we will look at
Jesus’ example, the practice of the apostles, and the practice of
Paul.

However, before looking at these, perhaps the best place to
begin our examination of two covenant theology is with Paul’s
opening declaration in Romans 1:16: “I am not ashamed of the
gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of
everyone who believes, first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.”
Many wonder why Paul would begin his message with an assertion
that he was not “ashamed of the gospel.” Different answers have
been shared on this, the most cogent - in my opinion - being
Franzmann’s.

Why should Paul speak, even negatively, of being ashamed of
the Gospel, which gives his life its content, purpose, and
direction? He is probably recalling Jesus’ words of warning,
“Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him will the Son
of man be ashamed when he comes in glory” (Luke 9:26).¹³
Concerning this, in his letter to young Timothy the Apostle Paul
writes: “For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a
spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline. So do not be
ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner”
(2 Tim. 1:7-8).⁷

But what did Paul mean when he stated that the gospel was the
power of God “for the salvation of everyone who believes?”
Perhaps an illustration will help us understand this more fully.
A number of years ago an evangelical attempt at piquing people’s
curiosity, and thus enabling Christians to share the Gospel
message with non-Christians, was developed by putting bumper
stickers on cars which simply said: “I Found It!” When people saw
this they were supposed to ask what it was that the driver
“found.” In response to this some Jewish groups countered with
their own bumper sticker which stated: “We Never Lost It!”
This is of course, the crux of the problem. Who is Jesus, and
how is one “saved”? I believe that for many, if not most,
Christians today the entire concept of our salvation has dulled.
That is, it is almost as if we take this for granted. The urgency
of our salvation and the unspeakable eternal consequences of being
cut off from God are not spoken of very often, or are not
understood very well.

This was not so with Paul’s readers. Franzmann picks this up and
summarizes it in these words. The word “salvation” is for us a worn coin;
for Paul and his readers, fresh from their Old Testament, it still had a sharp
image and a clear superscription. It meant radical
deliverance out of a desperate situation. What Israel had
experienced at the Red Sea, when all help was cut off before
and behind and only a vertical miracle from on high could save,
that was salvation. ¹⁴

The apostle continues in Romans 1:16, telling us that this
salvation message was “first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.”
There have been two main understandings or interpretations of what
Paul meant here by the term proton (English/first; Greek/πρωτον).
The first understanding or interpretation of this is that Paul
was merely referring to “first” in a chronological sense.

Concerning the usage of “first” and whether this meant that the
Jews have a “special preference in salvation” Nygren writes:
Does this after all mean that the Jew has special preference
in salvation? That cannot be what Paul means. The word may
refer to Israel’s special history. In that case their
priority is now abolished with the coming of Christ. “There
is neither Jew nor Greek.” All are one in Christ Jesus (Gal.
3:28). . . .Thus the priority of the Jew is abolished.¹⁵
Hodge echoes this, saying that Paul’s usage of “first” in this
verse “must have reference to time, ‘To the Jew in the first
instance, and then to the Greek.’” ¹⁶

The second understanding or interpretation of what Paul means
here is that “first” has reference not only chronologically, but
also in the sense of a “priority.” In Cranfield’s commentary on
Romans he explains this as a tension between the equality all
Christians have in common, and yet a special calling or place for
the Jew in God’s church.

The word τε . . . is suggestive of the fundamental equality of
Jew and Gentile in the face of the gospel (the gospel is the power
of God unto salvation for believing Jew and believing Gentile
alike), while the word prwton indicates that within the framework
of this basic equality there is a certain undeniable priority of
the Jew. In view of chapters nine to eleven it is hardly
admissible to explain this πρωτον as referring merely to the
historical fact that the gospel was preached to the Jews before it
was preached to the Gentiles. ¹⁷

Of great import here, Cranfield asserts, is Romans 11:29: “For
God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.”

Along with this verse, the theologians who believe that proton
refers to a priority will usually cite two other passages, Romans
2:9 and Acts 13:46. In Romans 2:9 Paul is referring to the coming
judgment, stating: “There will be trouble and distress for every
human being who does evil: first (πρωτον) for the Jew, then for
the Gentile.” I do not know of any commentators who exegete
“first” here in a temporal sense.

This exegesis is supported further when one looks at a number of
passages, especially at Acts 13:5-46. In this account Paul and
Barnabas enter the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, where Paul
eloquently shares the Gospel with the people gathered there
(13:13f.). When the Jewish people eventually reject the Gospel,
Paul and Barnabas respond very forthrightly: “We had to speak the
word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider
yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles”
(13:46, emphasis mine).

Christianity’s Core
As we have just seen, Christianity is - at its very core - a
missionary faith. Our command from the very beginning was to go
and “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them
to observe all things I have commanded you” (Matt.28:19-20).
Indeed, this is seen in Jesus’ very last words to us, as He
departed into heaven: “And you shall be witnesses to Me in
Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the
earth” (Acts 1:8).¹⁰

This command was taken literally, as the early church - after
Pentecost - turned Jerusalem upside-down. Concerning this David
Bosch writes:
Mass conversions of the Jews are again and again reported,
particularly of Jews in Jerusalem . . . but also of those in
the diaspora. There is, moreover, a clear progression in
these reports: in Acts 2:41, three thousand Jews are
converted; in 4:4 there are five thousand; in 5:14
“multitudes both of men and women” are added; in 6:7 the
number of disciples in Jerusalem has “multiplied greatly”; in
21:20 Paul is informed about “many thousands” . . . of
believing Jews. ¹⁸

We shall now turn and briefly observe this call to bring the
gospel to both Jews and Gentiles - as seen in Jesus’ example, the
practice of the apostles, and the practice of Paul.
Jesus and the Jewish People

In Jesus’ ministry we see numerous examples of how He came “to
the Jew first.” At the the very beginning of John’s gospel
account we are told that Jesus “came to His own, but his own did
not receive Him” (Jn. 1:11). He ministered to and among the
Jewish people (e.g., Matt. 4:23-25; 9:35; et al.).

It was only in unusual circumstances that Jesus ministered to
non-Jewish people (e.g., the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7 and
the Roman centurion’s servant in Matthew 8). The primary
principle was to go first to the people of Israel. Thus when
Jesus sent out the twelve apostles He told them: “Do not go among
the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to
the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6).

This command to go to the Jewish people is seen likewise in our
Lord’s commands after His resurrection. As before, the apostles
are to go out among the Jewish people with the message of
salvation in Jesus the Messiah. However, a new note is added.
That is, they also are to take this message beyond the confines of
the Jewish people and take it to the Gentiles as well. Their
command was, “beginning at Jerusalem,” to take the message out to
all people and to all nations, both to the Jew and to the Greek
(i.e., the Gentiles; cf., Luke 24:46-47; Matt. 28:18-20; Acts
1:8).

The Apostles and the Jewish People
I believe that we see in the practice of the apostles a paradigm
of missions for the entire church. In the very first preaching of
the gospel after Jesus’ departure we find the Apostle Peter boldly
proclaiming the good news of salvation, in the midst of a Jewish
audience. Acts 2:5 tells us that there were “Jews from every
nation” present when Peter shared the gospel message. And he
addressed his message specifically to the Jewish people: “Fellow
Jews and all you who live in Jerusalem . . . ,” and “Men of Israel
listen to this . . .” (2:14, 22f.). Furthermore he concluded his
message with the bold and challenging words: “Therefore let all
Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you
crucified, both Lord and Christ” (2:36). [Apparently, according
to our modern sensitivities, Peter was unaware that he was being
offensive to some of the Jewish people by telling them that they
needed to receive Jesus as their Lord and Messiah!]

This same pattern of preaching to the Jewish people is followed
consistently throughout the Book of Acts (e.g., the apostles with
Jewish people in the Temple in Acts 3:12-26; the apostles before
the “rulers, elders, and teachers of the Law” in Acts 4:8ff., with
a special emphasis on verses 10-12 [cf., Jn.14:6]; the apostles
before the “full Sanhedrin” in Acts 5:27ff.; Stephen before the
Sanhedrin in Acts 7; etc.).

It is not until Acts chapter ten that we find any attempt to
begin taking the gospel to anyone other than Jewish people, and
this took several miraculous interventions from God before it
occurred. And it was immediately following Peter’s bringing the
gospel to Cornelius and his household that he was criticized for
sharing the message of salvation with Gentiles!

The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that
the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised
believers criticized him. (Acts 11:1-2)

It was only very slowly, and reluctantly, that the early church
began fulfilling Jesus’ command to bring the gospel to people
other than Jews. Finally, after the great council of Jerusalem in
Acts 15, Paul, Barnabas, Judas and Silas were sent out with
instructions for the Gentile believers (Acts 15:19f.).

Paul and the Jewish People
Ironically, perhaps the supreme New Testament example of an
apostle bringing the news of Jesus Christ to Jewish people is from
the “apostle to the Gentiles,” Paul (Rom. 11:13). We saw above
the account of Paul and Barnabas entering into the synagogue in
Pisidian Antioch and sharing the Gospel with the Jewish people
there (Acts 13:5, 14-46). At their rejection of Jesus, Paul
responded: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since
you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal
life, we now turn to the Gentiles” (13:46).

Nonetheless, even as they took the gospel to the Gentiles their
normal methodology still was to bring the gospel to the Jewish
people first, before continuing on with the Gentiles. Thus we
find in Acts 14:1 the statement: “At Iconium Paul and Barnabas
went as usual into the Jewish synagogue.” Moreover, we are told
that they “spent considerable time there” (14:3).

Indeed, even before Paul’s ministry began, when he was still
blinded and fasting before the Lord, God told Ananias to go to
him, saying: “Go! This man is My chosen instrument to carry My
name before the Gentiles and their kings, and before the people of
Israel” (Acts 9:15, emphasis mine). And from the very beginning
Paul did take the gospel to the Jewish people first (e.g., Acts
9:20-22, 26-29; et al.). This continued and is seen throughout
his lifetime of ministry.

This is especially evident in his writings. First, he
emphasizes that apart from knowing their Messiah, the Jewish
people were cut off from God and from their covenant with Him. For
example, in his second letter to the Corinthians Paul writes:
We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face
to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance
was fading away.

But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same
veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been
removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.
Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their
hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the lord, the veil is taken
away. (2 Cor. 3:13-16)

And second, Paul continually asks that prayers be offered up for
the Jewish people, that they may repent and be brought back into a
relationship with God. That is, that they might receive Jesus as
their Lord and God, as their long-awaited Messiah.

This is seen especially in chapters nine through eleven of
Romans. In Romans 9:1-5 Paul eloquently writes of how the Jewish
people were elected by God in the past, and yet the adoption, the
covenants, the Law, the temple worship, and the promises were all
to no avail - for they rejected their own Messiah.

Paul again urges that prayers be made for them (apparently
unaware of any “two covenant” theory). “Brothers, my heart’s
desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be
saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God,
but their zeal is not based on knowledge” (Rom. 10:1-2).
He concludes that although the Jewish people are cut off for
now, that God still has plans for them. That is, that God has not
totally rejected them and that they would yet receive Jesus
(Romans 11).

Much more could be said concerning all of this, but that is not
within the purview of this paper. It is sufficient for our
purposes to see that throughout the entire New Testament we find
the Jewish people are always referred to as people who need to
know and receive Jesus Christ, in this manner no different than
any of the Gentiles.

A Concluding Biblical Rejoinder
As much as one might like to agree with those promulgating a
theology of two covenants, it simply is not a biblical doctrine.
Quite the contrary, it goes against everything that we find in the
New Testament relating to missions. In fact this is the
quintessential form of anti-Semitism, for in promoting this false
doctrine the only way of salvation is closed to the Jewish person
(Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12). Nothing could be more dangerous, racist,
or pernicious than this.

The Apostle Paul boldly affirmed: ”For I am not ashamed of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation
for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the
Greek” (Rom.1:16).

We are not to be ashamed of sharing the good news of the gospel
with anyone. And in that this good news came through the children
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and in that “salvation is of the
Jews” (Jn.4:22), this message was “for the Jew first.”
It seems that this is completely forgotten today. This gospel
of Jesus Christ was first and foremost to go to the Jews, and then
to the Gentiles. Christians owe a great debt to the Jews, for our
entire spiritual heritage is derived from them. Indeed, we have
been grafted into the olive tree of Israel, not the reverse (Rom.
11:11f.).¹⁶

Two Unanswered Questions: A Hypothesis
I close with two unanswered questions concerning the “two
covenant theory,” at least unanswered for those who believe in the
authority of God’s Word to lead us and guide us in all we believe
and teach.

I place these in the form of a hypothesis.
1) If the apostles and early church were called by God to bring
the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ to the people of
Israel, to share the person and work of the Jewish Messiah with
the Jews; then,
2) when was this call abrogated? And,
3) how do we know that it was abrogated, that is, by what
authority was this call to preach and evangelize terminated?
As far as I know these questions remain unanswered by proponents
of this theology, or at least unanswered from a biblical
perspective.

Stephen Neill eloquently sums up the task we face in attempting
to reach out to Jewish people with the good news of Jesus Christ.
Franz Rosenzweig suggested that the church has need of the
synagogue, if it is to be true to its vocation. The
Christian must ask for liberty to suggest to the Jew that the
synagogue has need of the church, if it is to find its own
true fulfillment. The suggestion must be made with the
utmost humility, with a full sense both of the wrongs for
which the church has been responsible in the past, and of the
admiration due to the amazing faithfulness with which the Jew
has clung to the God who has chosen him. All that he dare
ask is that the Jew will look again at Jesus Christ, without
hate and without prejudice, and consider whether there may
not be things in the picture that he has so far missed. ¹⁹

Sanford Mills, a Hebrew believer, eloquently summarizes the
other half of the problem we are facing today in attempting to
reach Jewish people with the gospel. “The sad part of it is this,
that many sincere Christians who do not believe that the Gospel is
to the Jew first, do not believe that the Gospel is for the Jew at
all!” ²⁰



END NOTES
1 Eric W. Gritsch, "Luther and the Jews: Toward a Judgment of
History," in Luther and the Jews (n.p.: Lutheran Council in the
USA, 1995), 9.
2 Arnold Betz, “Franz Rosenzweig: Essay and Exhibit”
(AOL:www.library.vanderbilt.edu/divinity/rosenzw/rosenbib.html:
1997), 3.
3 Nahum N. Glatzer, Franz Rosenzweig: His Life and Thought (New
York: Schocken Books, 1961), 162.
4 Franz Rosenzweig, in Glatzer, 341.
5 Ibid., 342.
6 Jakob J. Petuchowski, “The Christian-Jewish Dialog: A Jewish
View,” in Lutheran World, October, 1963, vol. 10, no. 4, 383.
7 Arthur Gilbert, "The Mission of the Jewish People in History and
in the Modern World," in Lutheran World, July, 1964, vol. 11,
no. 3, 308.
8 Leon Klenicki, “Jewish-Christian Dialogue,” in Leon Klenicki and
Geoffrey Wigoder, A Dictionary of the Jewish-Christian Dialogue
(New York:Paulist Press, 1984), 101-102.
9 Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House,1983), 2.
10 Carl E. Braaten, “The Resurrection in Jewish-Christian
Dialogue,” in Lapide, 19.
11 Celia Deutsch, “Jewish-Christian Dialogue,” in Leon Klenicki
and Geoffrey Wigoder,103.
12 George Sheridan, in Mitch Glaser, “Critique of the Two Covenant
18
Theory,” Mishkan: A Theological Forum on Jewish Evangelism, 1989,
vol. 11, no. 2, 45. Shortly after making this comment Sheridan
was removed from his position by Rev. Larry Lewis, the President
of the Southern Baptist Home Mission Board. Lewis explained this
by saying: “We must believe in Jesus Christ and accept Him as our
Lord and Savior. Someone who doesn’t hold that position shouldn’t
be in an evangelistic position for the Home Mission Board.”
(Glasser, 68)
13 Martin H. Franzmann, Concordia Commentary: Romans (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1968), 32.
14 Ibid., 33.
15 Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans, trans. Carl C. Rasmussen
(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949), 73.
16 Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New
York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1882), 43.
17 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans, Vol. I. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975),
91.
18 David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in
Theology of Mission (New York: Orbis Books, 1991), 96.
19 Stephen Neill, Christian Faith & Other Faiths (Downers Grove:
Intervarsity Press, 1984), 55.
20 Sanford Mills, A Hebrew Christian Looks at Romans (New
York:ABMJ Press, 1971), 37.