Is Biblical Theology inherently anti-Jewish?

Are Jews not interested in Biblical Theology?

In his article, Levenson primarily critiques prominent biblical theologians Walter Eichrodt and Gerhard von Rad. Their books are still considered classics and are widely used in Christian theological education. Levenson may have a point: these biblical theologies contain a great deal of supersessionism, and could therefore be considered anti-Jewish. But does that mean that a Jewish biblical theology is impossible? In my inaugural lecture on June 3, 2025, I explored both questions.

Most biblical theologies developed in the 20th century present the Hebrew Bible as a precursor to the New Testament. To summarize Levenson’s arguments:

1. A Christian biblical theology — which views the Bible as encompassing both the Old and New Testaments — inherently sees the New Testament as the context, and often the fulfillment or realization, of the Old Testament. The authors of such theologies often acknowledge this openly. According to Levenson, such a theology is therefore, however, irrelevant for Jews.
2. A Jewish theology that takes the Talmud and Midrash instead of the New Testament as the religious and literary context of the Hebrew Bible cannot be considered biblical theology — because no Jew claims that the Talmud and Midrash are part of the Bible.

Thus, Levenson concludes that Jews are not interested in biblical theology. Moreover, Christian biblical theology is often experienced by Jews as offensive because it tends to portray Judaism in a negative light. Theologians like Eichrodt and von Rad read the Bible through a biased lens: they depict biblical Judaism as the negative background against which Christianity shines brightly. Often, they also project their own contemporary negative views of Judaism back onto the biblical text.

The Sabbath as a Burden

Let’s look at an example from Theology of the Old Testament by Walther Eichrodt, where he writes about the Sabbath:

It was not until in later Judaism a religion of harsh observances had replaced the religion of the Old Testament that the Sabbath changed from a blessing to a burdensome duty.

Levenson rightly points out that no “late” Jewish sources portray the Sabbath as a burden. The use of the word “late” is a telltale sign of Eichrodt biased view. Like many theologians of his time, he viewed Second Temple Judaism as a decline and Christianity as the rightful successor of Biblical Israel. His comment about the Sabbath show how disconnected he was from Jewish experience, because the Sabbath is generally considered as the summum of rest and joy, as we will see later.

Today, biblical theologies that deliberately portray Judaism in a negative way are rare in academic settings. On the other hand, popular theological works, that speak about Judaism in an incorrect and often negative way still circulate. Often these present themselves as favorable towards Judaism. [In the Dutch version of this blog I include here an example of Abraham van de Beek, De kring om de Messias. Israël als volk van de lijdende Heer (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2004).]

The above example shows that theologians, but we can extend this to other Christians, often speak about Jews, but not with them. Their knowledge comes from the Bible, read through a biased lens. This can be addressed in theological education — for example at the PThU, but also in churches, Bible study groups, and catechesis. This should not be difficult, but it does require an open mind. Because it might uncover a picture of Judaism that many would prefer to keep hidden: a living and joyful Judaism that doesn’t need to be replaced.

One way to do this is to teach not only the Hebrew Bible but also early Jewish texts from the time of the New Testament, rabbinic literature, and contemporary Jewish practices.

The Sabbath in Jewish Experience

Here is an example from a rabbinic midrash that counters the image of the Sabbath as a “burden”:

Why did He bless it [Shabbat]? Rabbi Berekhya and Rabbi Dostai and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman, Rabbi Berekhya and Rabbi Dostai say: It is because it does not have a partner. Sunday has Monday [as its partner], Tuesday has Wednesday, Thursday has Shabbat eve. But Shabbat has no partner. […]
Shabbat said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe, all of them [the other days] have partners, but I do not have a partner.’ The Holy One blessed be He said to it: ‘The congregation of Israel is your partner.’ When Israel stood before Mount Sinai, the Holy One blessed be He said to them: ‘Remember the matter that I said to Shabbat: The congregation of Israel is your partner.’ That is the meaning of the statement in the Ten Commandments: “Remember the Shabbat day to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8). [Genesis Rabbah 11:8]

In this midrash, the Sabbath is presented as Israel’s special companion. God promised this special relationship to the Sabbath, and Israel is reminded that it must be a good partner for the Sabbath. The “commandment” to “keep it holy” receives its own meaning here; it is certainly not a “heavy burden” but a bond with a partner, a friend, or even a lover.

Next to this fourth-century CE Midrash, I can place a liturgical song, which has ancient roots but is still sung today in the synagogue service on Friday evening. This service is called Kabbalat Shabbat, the “receiving of the Sabbath.” In this song, there is no longer any doubt about the nature of the partnership between the congregation and the Sabbath: the Sabbath is received as a bride. The song is known as Lecha Dodi, after its first words, “Come, my friend.” I quote a few verses from the longer song.

Come, my friend, to welcome the bride
The face of Shabbat we will receive

"Keep" and "remember" in one saying
We were caused to listen by the Unified God
Adonai is One, and His Name is One
To His name, and to glory and to praise!

Come in peace, crown of her husband
As well in joy and in jubilation
The midst of the faithful precious nation
Enter, Bride! Enter, Bride!

The most important thing is the joy that emerges from this song, even when the seemingly strict terms “remember” and “keep” are used. This song is the highlight of the Friday evening service and is experienced by everyone as a spiritual, connecting, and even moving moment.

To counter Eichrodt, Levenson cites a passage from Abraham Joshua Heschel’s The Sabbath.

Six days a week the spirit is alone, disregarded, forsaken, forgotten. Working under strain, beset with worries, enmeshed in anxieties, man has no mind for ethereal beauty. But the spirit is waiting for a man to join it. Then comes the sixth day. Anxiety and tension give place to the excitement that precedes a great event. The Sabbath is still away but the thought of its imminent arrival stirs in the heart a passionate eagerness to be ready and worthy to receive it.

Here, it is not the Sabbath but the other days that are burdensome — and the Sabbath is the liberation from that burden.

Is There Such a Thing as Jewish Biblical Theology?

Another issue raised by Levenson — beyond the anti-Jewish character of Christian biblical theology — is that the Hebrew Bible contains many different types of texts and thus cannot contain a single theology or overarching theme. Furthermore, Judaism embraces a diversity of interpretations of biblical texts. However, precisely for that reason, a Jewish biblical theology can exist — one that acknowledges, and even cultivates, the idea that a biblical text may have multiple valid interpretations. In such a theology, interpretation itself becomes a religious act — a contribution to revelation. Michael Fishbane puts it this way:

Interpretation therefore partakes of the sanctity of Scripture even as it further reveals it: for the role of interpretation is neither aesthetic illumination nor aesthetic judgment, but rather the religious duty to expound and to extend, and so to reactualize the ancient words of God for the present hour.

Interpretation of Torah is also called (oral) Torah. Fishbane calls this a “hermeneutical revolution,” because the latter Torah originated without a new divine revelation.

Jewish Biblical Theology for Protestant Christians?

I believe this kind of hermeneutical theology fits well with the Protestant tradition of sola scriptura. In this tradition, Scripture is the primary (or sole) source of truth — but it still requires interpretation. The believers are allowed and even encouraged to study Scripture and draw wisdom from it. Moreover, Protestantism, like Judaism, lacks a central authority that dictates the correct interpretation of each passage. By making our interpretive biases explicit, hermeneutical theology can make a valuable contribution to Protestant biblical theology.

I don’t intend to say that Christians should read the Bible exactly as Jews do. The Christian Bible is not the same as the Jewish one, and Christians have their own interpretive traditions. But this doesn’t prevent Christians and Jews from enriching one another through mutual familiarity with their respective approaches to Scripture.