Jewish-Christian Dialogue Research Articles

‘The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’: Markus Barth's awkward hostility to critics of his theology of reconciliation

AbstractMarkus Barth (1915–1994) is best-known for his pioneering work in Jewish-Christian dialogue, and his Anchor Bible commentaries. Convinced that Ephesians 2:14–16 is the core of Paul's gospel, Barth concluded that the ‘one new man’ in Christ not only necessitates an indissoluble solidarity between Christians and Jews, but entails that all enmities have been negated by Christ's reconciliatory work. Ironically, this conviction provoked in him an antagonism towards many of his Jewish interlocutors. Their refusal to ‘forget Auschwitz’ caused Barth to accuse them of not being sufficiently conciliatory, and in turn led him, with sadly supersessionistic logic, to eschew reconciliation with them, because he did not think they took reconciliation seriously enough.

What can we learn from Bonhoeffer concerning the churches facing Palestinian suffering?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s essay on “The Church and the Jewish Question” (1933) inspired already two ecumenical processes. The first one was the decision of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) in 1977 declaring apartheid a status confessionis, the second was the call of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) to engage in a processus confessionis “regarding economic injustice and ecological destruction” (1997). This led the LWF (2003), the WARC (2004) and also the World Council of Churches (WCC in 2013) to formally reject imperial neoliberal capitalism. Now it inspires the church actions against the state of Israel, depriving the Palestinians of their civil and political rights and the justification of this by misusing the Bible in (Christian) Zionism. This amounts to apartheid according to all relevant human rights organizations and the UN. There are important consequences for Christian-Jewish relations in Germany and the West today. After Western antisemitism and the horrific genocide by German Nazis against the Jewish people it was extremely necessary to overcome this past by intensive Christian-Jewish dialogue. However this has become a deal to silence critique of Israel’s constant violations of international law and human rights, as pointed out by the Jewish liberation theologian Marc Ellis. In order to overcome this a theology of land respectful of human rights is needed. Churches are being called to a process of study and discernment leading to action. A special responsibility lies with the churches in Germany and the USA because their governments must link their cooperation with the State of Israel to international law and human rights.

Historical and Political Reflections on the Jewish-Christian Dialogue

Abstract The Jewish-Christian dialogue has a dynamic, ongoing character, which impacts greatly not only on the relations between the two faith communities, but also on the self-reflection of each community itself (Kampling). Considered from a political point of view, moreover, the Jewish-Christian dialogue is characterised by a structural asymmetry, which has at least three underlying reasons: (1) the numerical imbalance between Christian and Jewish communities; (2) the different ways Christianity and Judaism perceive each other; and (3) the different roles assumed by Christianity and Judaism throughout history (Ben Johanan).

“Who is my Neighbour? Interfaith Dialogue and Theological Formation” (Responses)

The following are three response papers that were presented at the “Who is My Neighbour? Interfaith Dialogue and Theological Formation Conference,” held on October 19, 2022, and are indirectly responding to Amy-Jill Levine's discussion on Christian-Jewish dialogue.
 The first response paper by Jean Duhaime, entitled “Christian-Jewish Dialogue and Theological Formation,” discusses how Christian-Jewish dialogue has been viewed and theologically negotiated in the Catholic tradition since Vatican II. By also addressing various Jewish reactions to the shift in Catholic attitudes towards the Jewish tradition, Duhaime illustrates the work still needed to be done for the Catholic Church to clarify its understanding of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism while simultaneously highlighting the value of including Jewish-Christian dialogue in the formation and training of religious leaders.
 The second response paper by Sherril Gilbert, entitled “Why Training in the Art of Interreligious Dialogue Is Necessary for Theological Education: Thinking About ‘Who Is My Neighbour?’ From a Jewish Perspective,” discusses her personal experience in the seminary and her work as a Rabbi in multifaith contexts. Rabbi Sherril Gilbert’s response shifts the focus from the dialogue of theological exchange to what interreligious dialogue theorists would call “the dialogue of life” – which is to say, she articulates the wholistic value of interfaith dialogue, and, in doing so, demonstrates why it is crucial to incorporate a concern for interfaith dialogue into modern theological education.
 The last response paper by Hassan Guillet, entitled “La Table interreligieuse de concentration du Québec: A Case Study” examines his personal experiences with interfaith dialogue during the COVID-19 pandemic, as a founding member of the Table Interreligieuse de concertation du Québec. He explains how this experience opened his eyes to the power of interfaith dialogue and collaboration, and also to the need to expand interfaith dialogue initiatives to include as many faith communities as possible, including Indigenous faith communities that are not as clearly demarcated as, say, Christianity, Judaism, or Islam

Mosaic Tiles: Comparative Theological Hermeneutics and Christian-Jewish Dialogue About the Land

the purpose of this article is to outline an approach for religious bodies to dialogue between Christians and Jews within the North American context. This approach contains some hermeneutic keys of contemporary comparative theological work in the academic field. However, it is suitable for the practical work done within the settings of Jewish-Christian dialogue. To achieve this purpose, this article will unfold in three steps. First, it outlines what I would call "mosaic tiles" of ideologies around Israel that do not translate well into the ideologies of other dialogue partners. The second step involves outlining some key characteristics of the hermeneutics of comparative theology, especially its emphasis on textuality, hermeneutic openness, and humility. In the third and final step, I engage these three hermeneutic characteristics by applying them to the topic of the Land in Christian-Jewish dialogue.

Jacob’s Younger Brother: Christian-Jewish Relations after Vatican II by Karma Ben-Johanan

Reviewed by: Jacob’s Younger Brother: Christian-Jewish Relations after Vatican II by Karma Ben-Johanan Michael Skaggs Jacob’s Younger Brother: Christian-Jewish Relations after Vatican II. By Karma Ben-Johanan. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2022. 352pp. $35.00. Among the more vivid anecdotes recalled by historians of Catholic-Jewish relations is the 1959 Good Friday liturgy celebrated in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, as relayed by Michael Phayer in The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930–1965. When the prescribed prayer for the conversion of “the perfidious Jews” [perfidis Judaeis] was chanted, the pope halted the liturgy. He told the deacon to say the prayer again, without perfidis. Six years later, an ecumenical council proclaimed joyfully—specifically in regard to Jews—that “the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’” (Nostra Aetate, 4). From one perspective, and as often reported in the secular media, the promulgation of Nostra Aetate heralded the end of Catholic-Jewish enmity. Yet accepting this neat bookend to centuries of antisemitism, argues Karma Ben-Johanan, requires overlooking an intricately nuanced development of thought among both Catholic and Jewish thinkers before the council and since. In Jacob’s Younger Brother, Ben-Johanan explores “the relation to the Other as a key component in the consolidation of religious identities in the second half of the twentieth century” (2). The book is not a narrative history of Christian-Jewish dialogue. Instead, Ben-Johanan focuses closely on internal dialogue within each tradition, about the other. Significantly, Ben-Johanan has not offered an uplifting story of ever-approaching unity: “this book is about the problems of rapprochement and not about its successes” (4). Finally, she restricts her well-argued analysis to the thinking and writing of the intellectual elite of each tradition, acknowledging that what she calls “unresolvable tensions” between the two are “confined to specific realms of writing and thinking, to the doctrinal and halakhic cores of the respective traditions” (8). My own work and that of others has demonstrated the [End Page 83] remarkably fraternal relations that have characterized Catholic-Jewish collaboration on several concrete, societal problems. While the book’s main contribution reveals the deeply problematic relationship between Catholicism and Judaism after Vatican II, which ostensibly put an end to the difficulties between Catholics and Jews, Ben-Johanan necessarily guides the reader through the histories of Catholic and Jewish thought. The book is helpfully divided into two main parts, “Judaism in Catholic Theology” and “Christianity in Orthodox Jewish Thought.” Ben-Johanan brilliantly synthesizes centuries of debate within Catholicism and Judaism while maintaining an ultimate focus on thinkers and leaders closer to our own day, including Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, as well as leading rabbinical authorities such as David Rosen of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel (sometimes mistakenly perceived as something like a “Jewish Vatican”) and Eugene Korn of the Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation. Ben-Johanan offers a lucid narrative of Catholicism and European Judaism metaphorically switching places: while the Catholic Church’s landmark statement on Jews in Nostra Aetate in 1965 appeared as the church’s influence on state power waned, the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 meant Judaism now held an amount of sovereign authority not seen for millennia. Pretensions to fraternity could be lowered in intra-Jewish (particularly intra-Orthodox) discussions of Christianity. In this way, Ben-Johanan argues, public, Orthodox rejections of Catholic-Jewish dialogue became possible precisely because of modern conceptions of religious liberty that the church itself had come to advance. An extreme example is Zvi Yehudah Kook’s full embrace of the charge of “deicide” that had been leveled at Jews for centuries: rather than ascribing the crucifixion of Jesus to the Romans, Kook cited Maimonides: “If it was a rabbinical court, then it was a rabbinical court! A Jewish court . . . not an instance of the gentiles” (203). Ben-Johanan describes Kook’s writing as a thoroughly modern stance for a Jew to take precisely because it rejects the need to placate a majority Christian society. Perhaps the single notable...

‘Is Hellas of is Israël het uitverkoren volk?’

‘Is Hellas or is Israel the chosen people?’ Johannes Hermanus Gunning between Neo-Humanism and Judaism Gunning’s perception of contemporary Judaism was the result of the influence of the Dutch ‘Réveil’, especially of Isaäc da Costa. During his lifetime Gunning developed a rather consistent theology about ‘Israel’. He was no supporter of mission under the Jews. In some writings he adopted some popular ‘anti-Semitic’ ideas, but such notions were not decisive for his theology. On the contrary, Gunnings Israel-theology has given a basic impulse to the Jewish-Christian dialogue.

A Response to the Responses

A Response to the Responses John T. Pawlikowski (bio) At the outset, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to those who offered their incisive reflections on my article. They have written from the experience of many years of work on the issues raised by the long history of antisemitism in Christianity as well as in civil society. Each respondent brought vital questions and issues to the forefront in this complex discussion of the history and continued presence of antisemitism across the globe. They have added in different ways to an understanding of the wide contextual setting for this profound social disease, which has often reduced Jews to spiritual skeletons. All have constructively expanded our discussion of antisemitism. Let me make one important point at the beginning of this response. My original article was never intended to serve as a comprehensive introduction to the topic of antisemitism. Hence, my colleagues have expanded the parameters of my own article in important ways. My principal goal in writing my essay was to ask whether antisemitism has been successfully removed from Christian self-understanding in the almost 60 years that have passed since the issuance of Nostra Aetate at Vatican II. My personal answer is no, and I appreciate that all of the contributors to this forum, many of them with extensive experience in Christian-Jewish dialogue, [End Page 394] confirm my basic judgment and agree that considerable work still awaits the Christian community if antisemitism is finally to be removed from its basic proclamation. Readers will hopefully see that the cleansing process cannot be completed without a clear repudiation by Christian churches of the biblical texts and the widespread patristic teaching that laid the foundation for the theological gutting of the Jewish religious tradition and the social marginalization of Jews as a people throughout history. While today's patristic and biblical teachings about Jews and Judaism may not be overtly taught and preached as they were for centuries, the influence of this historic denigration on the consciousness of the Christian community will not be fully extricated without a clear repudiation of these texts. As I indicate in my article, the late Raymond Brown began such a process by unequivocally asserting that the passages in the Gospel of John in which Jews are described as under satanic influence can no longer be used in catechesis or liturgical celebration. Several contributors to this forum have rightly acknowledged certain Catholic documents, such as the statement on the Holocaust issued by the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews titled We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah1 and the controversial text released by the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) titled Dominus Iesus,2 caused dismay both within segments of the Catholic community as well as its ecumenical and interreligious partners, including Jews. Both documents created ambiguity regarding the Vatican's supposed new commitment to ecumenical and interreligious dialogue after centuries of promoting the notion of Catholic superiority. With regard to Dominus Iesus, several prominent Catholic leaders, such as Cardinals Walter Kasper and William Keeler, argued that the document did not pertain to the Jews but rather to certain situations in Asia. The logic of the document seems to include all who do not identify with Catholicism as their basic belief system. We Remember clearly refers to the Catholic-Jewish relationship. This document falsely claims that antisemitism was a marginal [End Page 395] Catholic outlook perpetuated by fringe and rogue elements in the Church. It also maintained that during the Shoah antisemitism was largely the work of pagans who attacked all religious belief, whether Christian or Jewish. Such statements are patently false in light of the historical record. There has been a persistent effort by some in the Church to say that antisemitism only took hold in deviant sectors of Catholicism. I recall a visit some years ago to Strasbourg, France, and its famous cathedral. The edifice is known for its face, which contains a depiction of the Christian-Jewish relationship through two women, one being young and vibrant representing Christianity and the other old and bedraggled holding a...

Laura Tack. John 14:6 in Light of Jewish-Christian Dialogue: Sharing Truth on the Way to Life

No abstract is available.

“Supersessionism”: The Political Origin of a Theological Neologism

This article proceeds along three primary lines. First, through an examination of the writings of Roy and Alice Eckardt and Franklin Littell, it demonstrates that the categorizing of ancient and modern Christian thinkers under the umbrella of “supersessionism” (along with the label for its proponent, the “supersessionist”) originated not in scholarly works of theological history or systematic theology, where the concepts now most frequently appear, but in the political environment of burgeoning American Christian support for the State of Israel’s military superiority. Second, this article foregrounds the way that these writings opposed themselves to Eastern Christians, Arabs, and church fathers. Third, it shows that, in light of their approach to both “traditional” theology and Christian (especially Orthodox) and non-Christian Arabs, the Eckardts, Littell, and other likeminded pioneers of American Christian-Jewish relations did not so much overcome the “supersessionism” myth that they identified and rejected as much as they redirected its principal elements toward a new cast of characters. The article concludes by briefly considering the common role played by “supersessionism” as a sort of “gateway” into Jewish-Christian relations for non-Western theologians, with the hope of reshaping a historically problematic aspect of Jewish-Christian relations that has tended to hinder, rather than facilitate, more frequent Orthodox and other Arab Christian participation in Jewish-Christian dialogue.

The God of the Old Testament: Encountering the Divine in Christian Scripture by R. W. L. Moberly

Reviewed by: The God of the Old Testament: Encountering the Divine in Christian Scripture by R. W. L. Moberly Catherine Petrany r. w. l. moberly, The God of the Old Testament: Encountering the Divine in Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020). Pp. xiv + 333. $34.99. This book comprises extended versions of the Hulsean Lectures that R. W. L. Moberly delivered at Cambridge University in the 2019–2020 academic year. Those familiar with M.'s rich body of work will recognize here the hallmarks of his theological approach, developed in previous books such as Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013). As in that volume, M. here eschews any claims to a systematic biblical theology in favor of localized interpretations of "significant and representative" texts attached to broader theological themes (p. 2). Overall, M.'s approach straddles the boundary between theological ambition and interpretive restraint. His introduction begins with the statement that "[t]his is a book about God," but he qualifies this intention by clarifying his aim to draw out "aspects" of a "grammar" of God (p. 1). In other words, M. wants to articulate what it means for contemporary Christians to respond in word and practice to the sacred texts of ancient Israel, guided by the imperative of Ps 100:3, namely, to "Know that the Lord is God." Hermeneutically astute, M. presents his claims as text-based and partial, set within living contexts that constantly change. As in his other works, M. here shows a particular sensitivity to Jewish–Christian dialogue, evident in his rich interactions with Jewish scholars as well as in his claim that his exegesis is not "the way" but "a way" (p. 3; emphasis original). In all this, one can sense M. deftly, but perhaps also guardedly, tiptoeing around the well-established potholes of any "biblical theology" project, while also affirming his commitment to make qualified claims about the theological implications of these texts as Christian Scripture. The six chapters of the book are arranged neither chronologically nor canonically, but rather in a sequence that seems personally intuitive to M. The topics are as follows: (1) "The Wise God" (Proverbs 8); (2) "The Mysterious God" (Exodus 3); (3) "The Just God" (Psalm 82); (4) "The Inscrutable God" (Genesis 4); (5) "The Only God" (2 Kings 5); and (6) "The Trustworthy God" (Psalm 46; Jeremiah 7; Micah 3). Each chapter begins with a captivating and thematically relevant scene, drawn from contexts as varied as the Parisian storm that transformed Blaise Pascal's life (chap. 2) to the contemporary television show Homeland (chap. 3). A close reading of the selected text follows and is variously supplemented with traditional Jewish and Christian interpretations, modern readings of the text or theological issue at stake, and hermeneutical reflections. M. thus weaves together disparate strands of history and interpretive tradition, with contemporary voices both religious and secular, to [End Page 117] create illuminating readings of these texts, some well loved (e.g., Exodus 3) and others perhaps less familiar to nonspecialists (e.g., Psalm 46). This does lead to chapters that, at times, seem a bit uneven. M.'s approach is highly selective not only in his choice of texts but also in his engagement with past and present voices. For example, in his reading of the history of interpretation of Exod 3:14, M. briefly looks at its iterations in the LXX, the NT, and Hilary of Poitiers's De Trinitate. In his reading of Psalm 82, his historical interlocutors include John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, and Robert Bellarmine. While M. acknowledges this selectivity, it is not always clear why this or that voice is heard except that M. himself finds it compelling. Perhaps this is reason enough! Certain omissions, however, such as the lack of any sustained interaction with feminist interpreters, might be a barrier for some readers. Two standout and loosely connected chapters engage the related themes of divine justice (chap. 3) and divine "inscrutability" (chap. 4). M.'s choice of the enigmatic Psalm 82 over more obvious prophetic or legal texts to raise questions of divine justice elevates his discussion. M. sees in the psalm...

Perspectives for Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews as a Constructive Contribution to Jewish-Christian Dialogue

Perspectives for Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews as a Constructive Contribution to Jewish-Christian Dialogue

Justin’s Dialogue and the Search for Contemporary Discourse Between Christians and Jews: A Closer Look at Dialogue, Chapter 47

Abstract There has been a long-lasting scholarly debate on whether Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho reflects an authentic “Christian-Jewish dialogue.” Without claiming to provide an answer, this paper will focus on Dialogue, chapter 47 in order to point to a contemporary discourse between Christians and Jews that might form the background of Justin’s writing: In chapter 47, Trypho and Justin discuss whether there will be eternal salvation for Jews who believe in Jesus as the Messiah and continue to observe the law. Against other Christian opinions, Justin argues they will be saved provided they do not force their fellow Christians to observe the law to the same degree that they themselves do. While this is good evidence of an inner-Christian discourse on the salvation of Christ-believers who continue adhering to the law, the subsequent lines in chapter 47 suggest that those Jews who do not believe in Jesus Christ are part of the broader Christian-Jewish discourse on eternal salvation. This is because for Justin the crux in all attempts to make Christians observe the law (even the attempts of assumed Christ-believers) is they tend to replace faith in Christ with observance of law to the exclusion of the former. It is precisely the question of eternal salvation that motivates Justin and Trypho to start their discussion in the Dialogue (8,2–4).

From Confrontation to Cooperation: The Philosophical Foundations of the Joseph B. Soloveitchik-Irving Greenberg Schism on Jewish-Christian Dialogue

AbstractThe place of interfaith dialogue in Orthodox Judaism has been the subject of extensive discussion. This article offers a reading of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik's and Rabbi Irving Greenberg's stances on interfaith dialogue that situates them in a Jewish philosophical context. Some scholars have argued that Soloveitchik's refusal to engage in Jewish-Christian theological dialogue must be understood historically; others have argued that his opposition to such dialogue must be understood halakhically. This article, building upon the view articulated by Daniel Rynhold in his 2003 article that Soloveitchik's stance on interfaith dialogue must be understood philosophically, posits that in order for Soloveitchik's stance on interfaith dialogue to be fully understood, it should be studied bearing in mind the influence of Hermann Cohen upon Soloveitchik's religious philosophy. This article, which demonstrates the direct influence of Franz Rosenzweig upon aspects of Greenberg's thought, further argues that in order for Greenberg's stance on interfaith dialogue—as well as his interfaith theology—to be completely grasped, his positions upon these theological matters must be studied with the awareness of Franz Rosenzweig's influence upon his thought. The reading offered in this article of Cohen and Soloveitchik and of Rosenzweig and Greenberg does not purport to minimize the irreconcilable differences between these thinkers; nonetheless, it believes that the substantial resemblances—and, in the case of Rosenzweig and Greenberg, the direct influence—between the views of Christianity held by these pairs of figures are significant and suggest a reconsideration of the role of philosophy in the story of American Jewish theology.

Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, written by Michal Bar-Asher Siegal

Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, written by Michal Bar-Asher Siegal

Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud by Michal Bar-Asher Siegal

Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud by Michal Bar-Asher Siegal

»… zu direkt neutestamentlich«!? Bonhoeffer, das Alte Testament und die Frage einer biblischen Christologie

Abstract In prison, Bonhoeffer reads the Old Testament over and over again. Implicitly, by doing that, he struggles for a new theological evaluation of Judaism of whose present fate he is well aware. In view of this, it is questionable whether Bonhoeffer's new theological insights can really be read from a dogmatically fixed Christology oriented solely on the New Testament. The examples of erotic love and blessing rather show that Bonhoeffer's idea of »all earthly life being utilized to testify« for God is entirely based on the diverse spectre of the Old Testament voices. When Bonhoeffer focuses on »who Christ actually is for us today«, or how central concepts of Christian soteriology such as »repentance, faith, justification, rebirth, sanctification« are to be interpreted »in a worldly sense« - and that means to him: »in the Old Testament sense« - then he does not read the Old Testament any longer with the lenses of a fixed Christology, as he has done for long in the shadow of Barth. Rather, he anticipates the basic insight of the later Jewish-Christian dialogue that the New Testament is essentially related to the Old Testament and Christianity thus stays dependent on Judaism and its truth.

Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud by Michal Bar-Asher Siegal

At first glance, Michal Bar-Asher Siegal's Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity is a kind of sequel to her impactful first book, Early Christian Monastic Literature and the Babylonian Talmud (Cambridge University Press, 2016). Continuing to explore the question, How much Christianity is in the Babylonian Talmud?, Bar-Asher Siegal turns to a well-defined set of talmudic stories to seek evidence of rabbinic knowledge of Christian ideas, tropes, and especially, debates. [...]it makes Bar-Asher Siegal's argumentation crystal clear.

The Jewish–Christian Dialogue Jason and Papiscus in Light of the Sinaiticus Fragment

AbstractFor centuries, the lost Jewish-Christian dialogue Jason and Papiscus was known only through various quotations and summaries from Patristic sources. This changed in 2011 with the publication of a newly discovered, large fragment of Jason and Papiscus known as the Sinaiticus fragment. The current article examines the Sinaiticus fragment, compares it to the previously known remnants of Jason and Papiscus and examines the information from the fragment in relation to other texts. Several important new observations are obtained as a result. This article—for the first time—unites the Sinaiticus fragment with all of the Patristic material related to Jason and Papiscus in one appendix, with all entries newly translated by the author with updated notes. This article also contains new digital images of the Sinaiticus fragment.

Historical Jewish-Christian biblical paradigm for contemporary Church/State relationship

Abstract: Nowadays we regard the Jewish-Christian dialogue as an ancient biblical heritage, reflected best in the Church/State relationship that still influence the Eastern-European Orthodox way of political theology. God, through the Law of Moses, offers the man created according to His image a series of rights that come to valorize the dignity and freedom of humans. These various rights must be protected by a civil authority that respects human dignity and religious freedom. Our original interpretation of Church/State relations will emphasize the necessity for a dialogue between Judaism and Orthodox Christianity that dominates Eastern-European countries, in order to update our joint ancient heritage, for building a better society.