Volume 8, Issue 2

This issue draws attention to the importance of Old Testament scholarship to conceptions of nationhood in Protestant political thought. Inclusive of biblical studies, history, theology, and political thought, this issue discusses hermeneutical as well as political tensions that are inherent to the reception of the Old Testament within political theology. These tensions primarily concerned the role of covenant, reason and the natural order, spilling into what would be recognized today as supersessionism, antisemitism and in some cases, even racism. Within that, it remains important to distinguish political contexts as the historical role of Protestant traditions and their current significance to right-wing uses of biblical imaginaries of the nation differs between Germany, the Netherlands as well as Anglo-American countries.

This article discusses a reorientation of supersessionist postures in German and Dutch Protestant reflection on emerging nation states in the nineteenth-century. Historically, Christian thought often othered “the Jew” as the “nascent Christian.” Since the seventeenth-century, Protestant theologians also entertained the possibility of theological othering on the basis of the legalism of the Mosaic covenant, of which ancient biblical Israel and its cultural liturgies were regarded as a token. In the context of the modern nation, German and Dutch Protestant thought entertained this typological othering of biblical nationhood to construct the modern Jew as “Gentile” to the modern nation. As “Gentile,” “the Jew” remains the embodiment of the ultimate other, yet as “nascent Christian,” modern Jews begin to face an unrelenting demand to assimilate. This conundrum contributed to a fundamental tension in the imaginary of the nation, namely between patterns of othering and structures of belonging, echoing far beyond antisemitism, and especially in patterns of othering that are inherent to racism and Islamophobia.

This article examines differences within the theological basis of early nineteenth-century Prussian conservatism. By exploring the usage of the Old Testament in the writings of conservative thought leaders Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Ernst Ludwig von Gerlach, and Friedrich Julius Stahl, this article contributes to scholarship of both traditions of biblical interpretation and that of the relation of theology and political theory. The focus of this article centers on three concepts of the Old Testament and their implementation in conservative political doctrine. I will discuss Hengstenberg’s concept of biblical historicity and unity of Scripture, Gerlach’s use of the Old Testament as the source of a role model for just religious wars and a theocratic concept of law, as well as Stahl’s bible-based political philosophy of history and the resulting model of political order. Thus, the basis for different, resulting concepts of church, state, and nation that were merged into an overall religion-based political conservative doctrine in pre-1848 Prussia are analyzed.

This article discusses the co-evolution of nationalism and Protestantism in the course of the sixteenth century in England; the influence of the Hebrew Bible’s concept of “the people of Israel” as a community of fundamentally equal members on the emerging English national consciousness (the first national consciousness to develop, in turn influencing all subsequent nationalisms); and the reinterpretation of the core passages of the Hebrew Bible, in English translations up to the King James version, in terms of the emerging national consciousness. Completely independent at their historical sources, nationalism and Protestantism reinforced each other in the crucial English case through the translation of the Hebrew Bible. This, on the one hand, nationalized Protestantism in England and, on the other, led to the incorporation of the biblical concept of the people of God in the new, secular concept of nation.

This article explores the Israelology of the prolific Dutch pastor, politician, and prime minister Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920), the architect of the nineteenth-century Neo-Calvinist movement. His thought still reverberates in Neo-Calvinist circles in North America, Europe, and beyond, providing inspiration to those seeking to articulate how contemporary churches can be both authentically confessional and also socially and politically engaged. Less known about Kuyper is his anti-Judaism and supersessionism: he regarded biblical Israel as instrumental to Christian theology, a pawn that God used and then discarded for the sake of more significant purposes.

This article examines the famous “city on a hill” sermon delivered by John Winthrop at the start of colonial Massachusetts Bay. It focuses on belief-formation, looking at how Winthrop reverse-engineered the covenant in two senses. First, he found a blueprint for a godly society in the Pentateuch. Moreover, scholars have missed Winthrop’s reversal of the covenant-formation process. In the Pentateuch, God approached Israel with a covenant offer—setting the terms of the agreement and setting the supernatural verification that the covenant was ratified. However, when Massachusetts Bay entered the covenant, Winthrop reversed the order: he approached God, he set the terms of the covenant and the standard of verification that God ratified the covenant. America’s “founding covenant,” though taken by many as a parallel with biblical Israel, is actually its opposite. In reverse-engineering the covenant based on the Pentateuch, Winthrop also altered the role of God and his people. One of the benefits flowing from covenant obedience, Winthrop argued, would be victory in battle against Native Americans.

Understandings of the new American nation as a “Second Israel,” and a prevalent political discourse devoted to the narratives of the Old Testament, were a distinct trait of the early United States. Indeed, the images and narratives of the Old Testament were as common in the formative decades of the United States, in the words of the great historian Perry Miller, as “the air that the people breathed.” This attachment to the Old Testament, and the fact that American nationalism and twentieth century Zionism crystalized around the biblical history of the Israelites, bears considerably on the relationship of the two nations. The “special” bond between the modern countries, which is commonly understood in terms of pragmatism, interests, and shared ideologies, thus rests on a deep cultural connection. The American public’s consistent backing of the State of Israel (one that far surpasses the constituency of evangelical Christian Zionists), which politically translates into a robust, lasting and bi-partisan support that defies the arithmetic of appeals to Jewish voters (or donors) seems puzzling at times. It becomes more intelligible in light of the centuries-long tradition of American public speech describing the nation as a new incarnation of biblical Israel. This usable biblical past, which continues to influence American culture in meaningful ways, adds an important dimension for our understanding of the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel.

As an originally political term, study of the concept of “covenant” has long demonstrated the intersection of biblical studies and political theory. In recent decades, the association between covenant and constitution has come to the forefront of modern political thought in attempts to find the origins of certain democratic ideals in the descriptions of biblical Israel, in order to garner either religious or cultural authority. This is exemplified in the claims of Daniel J. Elazar that the first conceptual seeds of American federalism are found in the covenants of the Hebrew Bible. Taking Elazar’s work as a starting and end point, this paper applies contemporary biblical scholarship to his definition of biblical covenant in order to reveal the influences of his own American political environment and that of the interpreters he is dependent upon. The notion that biblical covenant or its interpretation remains a monolithic or static concept is overturned by a survey of the diverse receptions of covenant in the history of biblical scholarship from the late 19th to the late 20th centuries, contrasting American and German interpretive trends. As such, I aim to highlight the reciprocal relationship between religion and politics, and the academic study of both, in order to challenge the claim that modern political thought can be traced back to biblical conceptions.