Yes, Even Jews Should Repent and Trust in Jesus
Covenant theology, otherwise known as the teaching of the New Testament, has come under attack in recent days following the explosive controversy centered around Candace Owens’ departure from the Daily Wire. She tweeted “Christ is King” in a public spat with Ben Shapiro, implying that she would obey God and pursue the truth surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict regardless of Shapiro’s negative comments towards her. Owens condemned both Hamas and the subsequent actions of Israel, which she believes have unnecessarily killed innocent Palestinians. Shapiro and others, such as Rabbi Shmuley, felt Candace was being antisemitic by drawing a moral equivalence between the Hamas attacks on October 7th and Israel’s response. Owens was fired from the Daily Wire just days after she defended herself against Shmuley’s accusations of antisemitism.
This is somewhat of an oversimplification, but it essentially sets the stage for the theological discussions that have ensued. The phrase “Christ is King” trended all weekend on X, and as you can imagine, lots people felt the need to weigh in. Many felt that the phrase was being used in an antisemitic way. Some associate the phrase with Nick Fuentes, who apparently has used the phrase at political rallies. It is alleged that the phrase is used by people to antagonize Jews specifically or to simply express hatred for the Jewish people.
I don’t know much about Nick Fuentes or his followers, so all of that is rather irrelevant to me. And to be honest, the context wherein “Christ is King” trended was Owens’ public dispute with Shapiro and the Daily Wire. It is within this context that the theological debates about covenant theology took place. This can easily be seen in Andrew Klavan’s response to the Daily Wire’s firing of Owens. He asserts that to say Christ is King in order to suggest that God has abandoned his chosen people is antisemitic. This can be seen below:
There was massive pushback against Klavan for these remarks. Many were centered on his supposed universalism. Here is one example:
To be clear, nowhere in Klavan’s show did he advocate for universalism. He never said everyone would eventually be saved. When he said that Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro would be saved by God in the end, he was espousing a variety of Christian inclusivism, something that many Christians have advocated for over the centuries. Of course, many fundamentalist evangelicals would not know this, as they tend to reside in theological echo chambers.
Inclusivism is the belief that God is at work in all peoples; this could even include aspects of their religious lives.[1] For some inclusivists, this means God can save those who have never explicitly heard the gospel of Christ, though anyone who is saved will ultimately be saved through Jesus. For others, this means that even those who have rejected belief in Christ in this life can still ultimately be saved by him if they have sought the Good in their life via natural law, considering that final judgement is according to works as per Romans 2:6-29. It would seem that Klavan is advocating for an inclusivism that is similar to this latter type. But it should be noted, this is a different view than that of pluralism, the belief that all religions ultimately lead to God.[2] And though there may be overlap with universalism (the belief that eventually everyone will confess Christ as savior and be saved), there are many inclusivists that are not universalists.
C.S. Lewis, a beloved figure in American evangelical Christianity, articulated his belief in inclusivism on more than one occasion. In writing on Christian apologetics, he states: “Of course it should be pointed out that, though all salvation is through Jesus, we need not conclude that he cannot save those who have not explicitly accepted him in this life."[3] One may also think of Erasmus’s comments that perhaps the company of God’s people will include those we wouldn’t expect: “Sacred scripture is of course the basic authority for everything; yet I sometimes run across ancient sayings or pagan writings – even the poets – so purely and reverently and admirably expressed that I can’t help believing the author’s hearts were moved by some divine power. And perhaps the spirit of Christ is more widespread than we understand, and the company of the saints includes many not on our calendar.”[4] I could go on with such quotes. There were advocates of similar views in the early church if you read the works of theologians like Clement of Alexandria or Justin Martyr. More modern figures like John Wesley and John Stott have argued for a kind of hopeful inclusivism. The Catholic Church officially made a move in this direction as of Vatican II: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may attain eternal salvation.”[5] The Westminster Confession of Faith in chapter X section III asserts that there are elect infants who die in infancy, and they are saved by Christ through the power of the Spirit. Of course, it is morally abhorrent to propose that there are nonelect infants who die in infancy, but the point remains: numerous Christian traditions and cherished Christian apologists have articulated different kinds of Christian inclusivism throughout the last 2,000 years. Any allowance for someone to be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ in this life is ultimately a form of inclusivism. The question really has been what exactly that should look like.
Thus, there is no need to panic when Klavan does the same. This is not necessarily a commentary on whether or not he is correct, it is just to say that there is a well-established Christian intellectual tradition going back to the early church that Klavan is drawing from. The bigger concern should be his insistence that Shapiro would be better off not to embrace Christ as Lord. And this is the reason for the present article: it is antithetical to Christianity to promote the idea that someone should abstain from bending the knee to Christ. That idea is where Klavan departs from the very essence of Christian teaching.
Notice his reasoning for claiming that the phrase, “Christ is King” can be used in an antisemitic way: if one uses the phrase to mean “God has abandoned his chosen people the Jews” then you are being hateful toward Jewish people. The underlying assumption here is that covenant theology, or the idea that God’s covenant with Abraham that he made in Genesis 12 is fulfilled in Christ and subsequently the church, is itself antisemitic. This theology is sometimes referred to as “replacement theology” though that is typically used as a pejorative. See below:
To suggest that the church “supersede(s)” the promises to Israel in the Old Testament is hateful to Jewish people; that is essentially what has been said, most notably by Klavan on his show. The main problem for Klavan is that Paul taught exactly this in Romans and Galatians. No, Paul did not use that exact language, and no thoughtful covenant theologian would either. Nevertheless, he told the Galatians in 3:27-29 that all who had been baptized into Christ, whether Jew or Greek, are heirs according to the promise made to Abraham. In fact, Paul even says the baptized are “Abraham’s offspring” (NRSV). This is shortly after 3:24 where he says that the Jewish law was never intended to be permanent, but was rather a disciplinarian meant to guide the Jews until Christ came. Perhaps he is more explicit in Romans 9:6-7, where it is argued that “not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants…” God’s chosen people are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). God fulfills his promises to Israel through a Jewish messiah. It is through Jesus that all the peoples of the Earth shall be blessed.
Contrary to what Klavan would have us believe, this covenantal reading of the Bible is not hateful towards Jews. God has not “abandoned” them at all. He offers them grace through faith in Christ. But this does mean that yes, even ethnic Jews should repent of their sins and confess Christ as Lord. For Klavan to suggest that Shapiro shouldn’t repent due to the hardship it would bring on his family is directly contradictory to Paul’s message to the Jews throughout his writings (and to Jesus’s remarks in Matthew 10:34-36). Now, I don’t think Klavan’s inclusivism is the problem here. Inclusivists have always called all men everywhere to repent. No prominent advocate of inclusivism has ever said “you know, that person is probably better off not becoming a Christian. God doesn’t want them to believe in Jesus.” That is simply asinine! As Pinnock points out, even in that famous inclusivist passage in Vatican II, there is still a warning against being deceived by the Evil One and exchanging the truth of God for a lie.[6]
No, I believe the problem with Klavan’s theology is his dispensationalism. This radically modern interpretive paradigm through which many evangelicals read the Bible today is a result of the interesting but anachronistic liberalism vs. fundamentalism debates of the 19th and 20th centuries. The details exceed the scope of this article, so suffice it to say that this evangelical dispensationalism has led to what I would say is an almost idolatrous revere of Jewish people and the nation state Israel among some American evangelicals. Any disagreement with or criticism of Israel as a nation is considered antisemitic, especially in right wing politics. Candace Owens has learned this, but I suppose she already knew. As for Klavan’s theology, what else would lead him to say that Shapiro should not believe in Jesus? Some may argue it is the inclusivism, though I suspect he wouldn’t say the same about a politically conservative Muslim or Hindu. As I said, while pluralists have refused to admit the absolute truth of Christianity, inclusivists have typically not done so. Klavan contends we should not say Christ is King to Shapiro, as there’s really no need for him to repent, apparently. God has not “abandoned” Israel, or so the argument goes.
Far from God abandoning his people, he has offered them redemption in Jesus. The Jews are included in this offer. However, covenant theology tells us that the promises made to Israel in the Old testament are fulfilled in Christ. This is hardly antisemitism; it is basic Christianity before the rise of dispensationalism. God loves Jews. God loves everyone. And most importantly, God calls all people everywhere to repent. We can speculate about what this might mean for people by taking into account natural law or what have you. What we cannot do is subvert the command for all people to follow Jesus. Klavan’s dispensationalism seems to obscure this basic Christian teaching.
[1]. See Clark Pinnock, “An Inclusivist View,” in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, 98.
[2]. On the contrast between pluralism and inclusivism, see John Hick, “A Response to Clark H. Pinnock,” in Four Views on Salvation, 124-128.
[3]. C.S. Lewis, “Christian Apologetics,” in God in the Dock, 102.
[4]. Erasmus, The Godly Feast.
[5]. Vatican Council II, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,” article 16. Accessed: https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/Lumen_Gentium.htm#:~:text=DOGMATIC%20CONSTITUTION%20ON%20THE%20CHURCH&text=16.,of%20God%20in%20various%20ways.&text=There%20is%2C%20first%2C%20that%20people,according%20to%20the%20flesh%20(cf.
[6]. Pinnock, “An Inclusivist View,” 99.