Stones the Builders Rejected: The Jewish Jesus, His Jewish Disciples, and the Culmination of History, by Mark S. Kinzer

Review by Rich Robinson

The newest offering from prolific Messianic Jewish theologian Mark Kinzer brings us a collection of his essays, most of which have been adapted from existing print or oral presentations, although some have not been previously published.1 All are introduced at the start by Jennifer Rosner, who also helpfully provides a summary of each essay in turn. It is useful to have these essays compiled in book form, as many will not have accessed them before now.

The essays fall into three categories: Christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology, here reimagined as Messianology, Israelology, and Zionology. The largest section is the one on ecclesiology/Israelology, not surprising in view of Kinzer’s extensive work in that area.

When Kinzer started his major writing projects beginning with 2005’s Postmissionary Messianic Judaism, he caused — to adapt Luke’s phraseology — “no small commotion”2 in the Messianic Jewish community. Most Jewish followers of Jesus had come from evangelical backgrounds; Kinzer offered a fresh voice based partly on his time in a Catholic charismatic community and in synagogue. Some did not know what to make of him or misunderstood his views, while others embraced his new vision. Nearly twenty years on from that book, Kinzer continues to invite both agreement and pushback.

And so on to the content. My summaries cannot do full justice to the tapestry of Kinzer’s thought, but I will at least try to highlight some of his key emphases. I cannot possibly summarize the essays without leaving out some salient points, but I hope readers of this review will be encouraged to read the essays for themselves.

In the first part on Christology/Messianology, Chapter 1 is “Post-Supersessionist Messianology: The Present and Future Jewish King.” Here Kinzer stresses that Jesus continues to be Jewish even at the present time, which means he continues to be intimately connected with the Jewish people as a whole. But Jesus’ identity is also as King and Lord of the Jewish people. As king he mutually depends on the Jewish people and they on him. Kinzer delves into the NT’s distinction between “King of Israel” and “King of the Jews,” that latter title stubbornly insisting on Jesus’ Jewish identity. So close is the connection that Kinzer can write, “Pilate implies that when the Jews look at him, hanging naked on a cross, they are looking at their King, they are looking at themselves.”3 As past, present, and also future King of the Jews, the hope is not in a future “conversion” of Jews but in their full life as Jews.

Chapter 2 is a refreshing look at the Nicene Creed, titled “Finding Our Way through Nicaea: The Deity of Jesus, Bilateral Ecclesiology, and Redemptive Encounter with the Living God.” Messianic Jews recognize the anti-Judaism that often pervaded the early church in the second century and after; sometimes this has led to pushing back against doctrines that are alleged to be pagan and un-Jewish. In this chapter, Kinzer begins with the Nicene Creed (hereafter NC) itself and works backwards rather than beginning from Scripture, an intriguing and heuristically helpful approach. Kinzer’s well-known bilateral ecclesiology means that Messianic Jews are committed to partnership with the Christian Church, for whom the NC is non-negotiable. In addition, the NC has become the hermeneutical lens through which the Christian Church interprets Scripture. This interaction between Messianic Jews and the Church is what Kinzer calls “dialectical ecclesial continuity.” Kinzer notes the problems with the Nicene Council (lack of Jewish representation, anti-Jewish conclusions regarding the dating of Easter). However, Kinzer maintains that the NC should be judged by the way it has been understood, not by its initial circumstances. The NC is right in what it affirms, but not in what it omits (that is, about Israel); nevertheless it is the affirmations that Kinzer is concerned with. Importantly, the NC derived its affirmations from biblical content while also standing apart from the philosophies du jour of its world — a point that addresses the accusation that pagan thinking informed Nicea. Furthermore, medieval Judaism has parallels to the Arian controversy (which the Council addressed), because beginning with Saadia Gaon, Jewish ideas of incarnation were subsumed under Greek philosophical categories, parallel to Arianism, while kabbalah paralleled the Nicene response to Arianism. By way of a Messianic Jewish response to the NC, areas for additional exploration include properly differentiating the Father from the Son; and the need to reference Israel. Kinzer also notes the problematic nature of the question “Is Jesus God?” which is susceptible to misinterpretation on the part of Jewish hearers. Furthermore, “When someone in our community rejects the deity of Jesus, they are putting in jeopardy the full realization of their covenantal identity, but not their covenantal identity itself.” I highly recommend this essay to anyone who may think Messianic Jews ought to jettison the Nicene Creed and other early expressions of Christian faith.4

Chapter 3 is “Judaism and the Divine-Human Jesus.” Kinzer shows, tracking with the conclusions of other scholars, that Judaism has prominently allowed for an “embodied God.” As others writers have noted, the Shema has come to be interpreted through the lens of Maimonides (who maintained that the God of Israel was a single indivisible unity). This Maimonidean view has then been retrojected in Judaism onto biblical thought. Here Kinzer makes reference to Jewish scholars Benjamin Sommer, Daniel Boyarin, Moshe Idel and others, who accept the idea of God’s embodiment as part of the Jewish tradition; in this connection, Kabbalah and Hasidism come into the discussion. And speaking of scholars such as Michael Wyschogrod, who reject incarnationalist views of Jesus because they are incompatible with Judaism, Kinzer notes that “Only Jews who affirm the divine-human identity of Jesus are now excluded from the Jewish conversation.” Kinzer holds out the hope that Messianic Jewish affirmation of a non-Maimonidean version of the Shema as well as incarnation and embodiment in reference to Jesus will eventually come to be accepted. This is also a critical essay especially for those unused to the rather counter-intuitive idea that Judaism has accepted the idea of divine embodiment.5

The large Part Two on ecclesiology/Israelology starts with Chapter 4, “Israel Within: Jewish Ecclesial Communities as Prophetic Sign and Theological Challenge.” This essay concerns the interaction between theology and history. Specifically, the establishment of the modern state of Israel and the “birth” of Messianic Judaism requires theological interpretation. Here we traverse diverse phenomena ranging from the council of Acts 15 to the “gentilization of the ekklēsia” to Jews in the Russian Orthodox Church. The close relationship between Messianic Jewish self-awareness and the rebirth of the state of Israel is explored as well, this double phenomenon being one that Kinzer frequently returns to in other essays. “I propose,” writes Kinzer, “that these Jewish ecclesial movements manifest a work of the Holy Spirit crying out for theological interpretation.” The central place often given to Paul’s writings by Protestants comes in for re-evaluation, especially vis-à-vis the Jewish component of the ekklēsia. Moreover, Kinzer suggests that the book of Acts is “the hinge on which the entire canon turns.” I anticipate that some will push back on their understanding that Kinzer is “reading theology” out of history, meaning that he imposes (in their view) a theological understanding onto historical events without warrant; as well as the question of a canon-within-a-canon that may arise from an emphasis on the diverse audiences of the New Testament. These are indeed two areas that could be fruitfully explored in the future.

Chapter 5 brings us, “Recovering the Jewish Character of the ekklēsia: Jewish Disciples of Jesus and the Jewish-Christian Schism.” Kinzer’s main concern here is “the recovery of the Jewish character of the ekklēsia in the present and the future. . . . this recovery requires the visible corporate presence of Jewish disciples of Jesus within the ekklēsia.” Kinzer notes that the “wrong turn” the ekklēsia took vis-à-vis Jewish believers in Jesus can be understood in two ways. One, that the “parting of the ways” was providential, and the wrong turn was simply denying the ongoing covenantal status of Israel. This understanding, however, makes Jesus insignificant for Jews. The other way to understand the wrong turn is that the parting of the ways should never have happened; the separation was “a tragic schism rather than a providential differentiation.” Kinzer also gives us a summary of the history of the modern Messianic Jewish movement, along with developments within the Catholic Church. Possible areas for future discussion would include the place of tragedy, schism, and indeed the Church’s anti-Judaism itself within God’s providential rule of history. How do both coinhere (and perhaps for some, they do not)?6

Chapter 6 is “The Community of Jewish Disciples of Jesus: Standing and Serving as a Priestly Remnant.” Kinzer surveys the thought of Franz Rosenzweig and the pushback made by some thinkers to Rosenzweig’s ideas and those like Michael Wyschogrod who are similar in their approach. Kinzer then relates that discussion to Jewish liturgy, with reference also to the Nicene Creed and the book of Ephesians, before moving on to the main thrust of the chapter, namely, the priestly role of Jewish believers in Jesus, as exemplified in the three models provided by Paul, James, and Peter.

Chapter 7 is “The Torah and Jews in the Christian Church: Covenantal Calling and Pragmatic Practice.” Here we find that Jewish life in its practical outworking should be “progressive, pragmatic, and personal.” For Kinzer this means being growth-oriented, realistic, and relational, all of which allows for “Jewish life within the church” to actually take place. He recognizes that Torah observance is an issue among Jewish followers of Jesus, but suggests that the real issue is not whether to observe Torah but how to do so for those Jewish believers involved in the life of the church, which has its own calendars and celebrations. Indeed, such Jewish believers will find that there are “competing claims” on their lives, and that at least is a reality that many could agree that they struggle with. The solution, for Kinzer, is first of all to “build relationships with other Jews,” whether in the church, in messianic communities, or in the larger Jewish community. I am grateful that Kinzer finishes up the chapter with an account of his own personal journey, which helps situate his approach within his own experience. Readers of this chapter, regardless of where they stand on “Torah observance,” will, I think, be grateful for Kinzer’s very flexible approach to Jewish observance in accordance with his three categories mentioned above. His approach comes across as one of encouragement towards Jewish observance rather than as a mandate.

In Chapter 8 we have “Jewish Disciples of Jesus and the Healing of the Twofold Tradition: Eight Theses.” While reiterating his views on Torah observance and the role of Jewish tradition, Kinzer also is open to non-Orthodox ways of approaching both Torah and tradition. And he notes that Jews in churches will have to work this out differently than those in Messianic contexts. Moreover, he raises the question of a proper openness to Christian tradition in Messianic Jewish life. Then follow the eight theses, in which “Messianic Jews” and “Jewish Christians” will have their own ways of responding to the “twofold [i.e., Jewish and Christian] tradition.”

Chapter 9 is “Jewish Disciples of Jesus: The Sacrament of Messianic Communion.” Here Kinzer seeks to discover the “distinct vocation” of Jewish followers of Jesus. He draws on the thinking of Lev Gillet (despite his first name, originally Louis, he was a non-Jewish Orthodox priest) and his book Communion in the Messiah. Gillet accords a significant role for Jewish tradition in both revelation and in the fulfilment brought by Jesus. Fascinating to me was Gillet’s linkage of Isaiah 53 to both the suffering Jewish people and to Jesus, a view that I think makes sense when coupled with the idea that Messiah-as-Servant enables Israel-as-Servant to fulfill its God-given destiny, as also highlighted by the use of the plural “servants” with reference to Israel in the last part of Isaiah. Perhaps the most controversial part of Gillet’s thought is his view that “faithful Jews” (Kinzer’s words here, not Gillet’s, referring to Jews who live Jewishly regardless of any faith in Jesus7) have a mystical and mysterious communion with Jesus. One point for discussion if not pushback here is that the idealized image of the “pious Jew” substantially conflicts with the recent increasing awareness that life in Haredi communities, for example, involves items of behavior and belief that are less than ideal (paralleling similar phenomena in the Christian church; and see the “as told by” stories of those who have left or are disaffected from the Haredi community).8 Therefore, we can ask how much the image of the “pious Jew” reflects reality.9 At any rate, one could still argue that there is communion with Jesus and the Jewish people regardless of piety — but that is a topic for another day. Kinzer in conversation with Gillet concludes by suggesting that the role of Jewish believers in Jesus is “as witnesses to the coordinated calling of the Jewish people and the Christian church in communion with the Messiah and with one another” — a significantly large enough idea to warrant its own book.

The unique content of Chapter 10 is “‘Physician, Heal Yourself’: Baptized Jews and the Wounded People of God.” Kinzer first notes those “baptized Jews” (that is, those in churches) who historically have been healers and reconcilers. The underbelly of this history, however, are those who were “source[s] of trauma,” notably in medieval times. Even in the modern age, popular writers such as Alfred Edersheim exhibited a distinctly negative view of the Talmud, while Jacob Brafman in 19th-century Russia is seen by some as a kind of predecessor to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Such negative attitudes have continued among some Jews in churches until the present time (whether, we must note, out of lived experience or for other reasons). Wisely, Kinzer also notes that some Messianic Jews see Christianity in similarly negative terms, characterizing Christmas and Easter, for example, as pagan. Triumphalism happens among both Christians and Messianic Jews, but in reality, we are not the “one true” anything but rather servants of reconciliation. Amen!

Finally, we come to part three on eschatology/Zionology with its two essays. Chapter 11 is “The People and Land of Israel in Lukan Eschatology.” Here we have a fine piece of exegesis arguing that Luke and Acts are Jerusalem-oriented, in contrast to the traditional reading that sees the Land as insignificant for the New Testament. In conversation with Gary Burge, Kinzer maintains that more than any other NT writer, Luke pays special attention to Jerusalem, especially evident in Jerusalem’s being the geographic pivot of his work. Arguing from the “geographic structure” of Luke and Acts, Kinzer also addresses the ending of Acts in 28:28, this time in conversation with Isaiah. He concludes that putting Acts 28 into its “social context,” the problem by the end of Acts is that the “Jewish community as a whole” has not come to a positive “communal decision” about Jesus. This presages divine judgment and Paul’s freedom to address both Jews and Gentiles as individuals. Nevertheless, an eschatological hope is still held out for corporate Israel.

Finally, Chapter 12 gives us “Post-Supersessionist Eschatology: Welcoming Jesus at the Mount of Olives.” This essay in part summarizes his 2018 book Jerusalem Crucified, Jerusalem Risen. As in previous essays, Kinzer highlights the existence of the State of Israel and the rise of a distinctively Jewish component to the ekklēsia. In particular, he addresses the idea of an eschatological “conversion of the Jews,” as many have labelled it (and conceive of it). He explores four passages from Luke and Acts which together show “Israel’s central role in the divine plan,” in contrast to the “conversion of the Jews” which “displace[s]” Israel from divine history. Kinzer further highlights the centrality of Israel and Jerusalem in these final events of history. Joseph Rabinowitz, who famously founded the “Israelites of the New Covenant” in 19th-century Kishinev, highlights for Kinzer this exact connection between the Land and the Jewish corporate presence within the ekklēsia. Concludes Kinzer, “Such an eschatology need not produce or reinforce Christian evangelistic missions to the Jews. The Jewish people have their own holy historical vocation, which Christians should support rather than subvert.” Full disclosure: I work with a Jewish mission agency. And I have had fruitful conversations with Kinzer on the subject, and so by way of reply, I see (1) Jewish missions as organic and from the inside rather than something “coming at” Jewish people from the outside; and (2) the Jewish life of missionaries to the Jews as likewise organic and not done for motives of “expediency.”10 I also see that (3) in the 19th and early 20th centuries, even if some came “from the outside,” so did other movements that sought Jewish attention, such as socialism, Communism, Ethical Culture, and other movements — in other words in those times and places it was normal to advocate, often in public lectures,11 for a variety of “causes” to the Jewish community whether done by Jews or non-Jews. Such advocacy was part of the fabric of Jewish life in those eras.

Two appendices round out the volume: “Appendix A: The Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council’s Vision for Messianic Judaism,” and “Appendix B: Collected Statements of The Helsinki Consultation on Jewish Continuity in the Body of Messiah.” A bibliography and indexes are also included.

So much for summarizing Stones the Builders Rejected, which I have probably done inadequately; so you will want to take up the book for yourself. Because it is a collection of essays, each chapter can stand on its own, even if organized into the three overarching categories. I will, however, conclude by offering one point of demurral.

I would like to comment on Kinzer’s usage of the term “Messianic Jews” to refer to those living in Jewish communities as opposed to Jewish believers in Jesus who find themselves in Christian churches. As one Jewish believer who has been part of such churches recently said, “I always thought I was a Messianic Jew — then [when I read Mark Kinzer] I found out I wasn’t!” I understand how Kinzer envisions different challenges and perhaps different roles for Jews who are in Messianic communities and those who are in other ecclesial structures. Yet I find it more helpful to categorize Jewish believers not in terms of their ecclesial position but rather in historical and sociological categories. The widespread adoption of the term “Messianic Jew” beginning in the 1970s12 had little to do with ecclesiology and much to do with the increasing ethnic consciousness among many groups. Indeed, the earlier designation of “Hebrew Christian” was in vogue not because of any minimization of Jewishness, but because in many European and then American Jewish communities, “Hebrew” was the designation of the Jewish nation, while “Christian” was the particular religious belief of those within that nation. (Hence: Hebrew National hot dogs; Hebrew Homes for the Aged; Hebrew Union College.)

If we want to talk about ecclesial communities, we must note the several “Hebrew Christian churches” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, not to mention such future-looking projects as Hermann Warszawiak’s vision in the 1890s for “Christ’s Synagogue” in New York City. Therefore I would like to see the term “Messianic Jew” applied to all Jewish believers in Jesus who affirm their Jewishness, at least if that is their preferred self-designation. Kinzer writes: “Some of these Jewish disciples of Jesus may identify as Messianic Jews, but generally they are content with the more fitting self-designation ‘Jewish Christians.’” I do not know how content they are, but I would argue that that description is not necessarily “more fitting.” Personally I have identified myself almost always as a “Jewish believer in Jesus.” I sometimes use the term “Messianic Jew,” even though currently I attend an Anglican Church. I once used “Jewish Christian” as well but have not done so for a very long time. At any rate, self-designation should, in my view, trump ecclesial location. An ecclesial distinction between “Messianic Jew” and “Jewish Christian” may have heuristic value, but precisely the unity of Jewish followers of Jesus should allow for the self-designation of choice, even while recognizing the distinctive challenges and issues that arise for those in Messianic communities and those in churches.13

In conclusion: read Stones the Builders Rejected! Kinzer is always creative, always challenging, and sometimes infuriating. What more could someone ask from a writer?

---

1. 1 Mark S. Kinzer, Stones the Builders Rejected: The Jewish Jesus, His Jewish Disciples, and the Culmination of History, edited and with an introduction by Jennifer M. Rosner (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2024).

2. 2 Acts 12:18 NRSV.

3. 3 Cf. treatments of Isaiah 53 and other servant songs in Isaiah that posit a close identity between the servant-as-individual and the servant-as-people.

4. 4 Further, on Jewish influences in early Christian doctrine and practice, see Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002).

5. 5 I particularly recommend Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), with whom Kinzer engages, and also Deborah L. Forger, Divine Embodiment in Jewish Antiquity: Rediscovering the Jewishness of John’s Incarnate Christ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 2017), chapter 1.2, “A Brief History of Research.” To my knowledge this dissertation has not been published in book form.

6. 6 I am reminded of the short book by Moisés Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? The History of Interpretation in the Light of Current Issues (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987) which briefly explored hermeneutical issues of the past in order to inform our present reading of Scripture. The larger question this essay and that book invite concerns God’s guidance of the ekklēsia vis-à-vis errors hermeneutical, theological, and relational. A large discussion indeed!

7. 7 Referring specifically to first-century Jewish followers of Jesus, Kinzer writes that “[they were] faithful Jews, but faithfulness demanded different behavior in diverse relationships and contexts.”

8. 8 See also, e.g. the book recently translated into English, Pinkes-Dov Goldenshteyn, The Shochet: A Memoir of Jewish Life in Ukraine and Crimea, Volume One, “presented and translated” by Michoel Rotenfeld (New York: Touro University Press, 2023). As recounted by the author, in bygone centuries in Eastern Europe, the melamedim in the cheder, though full of “piety,” more or less traumatized the children under their care with their beatings and punishments. What shall we also say about Christian missionaries who ripped Native American children from their homes and their culture, traumatizing a generation? No wonder Paul lays out the problem of sin for both Jews and Gentiles!

9. 9 As noted, this is not an accusation against the Jewish community; we only have to look at scandals and problems within the evangelical Christian community. Thus, this is a human problem.

10. 10 In private email correspondence, Kinzer has affirmed to me that there could be other motives for missionary work than that of “expediency.”

11. 11 Undoubtedly before the rise of modern communications, newspapers and public lectures provided not only information but also entertainment.

12. 12 The term “Messianic Judaism” found a usage decades earlier in the writings of Lawrence Forbes and others.

13. 13 And given the wide spectrum of what it means to be a “Messianic community,” ranging from mature congregations to those made up of non-Jews who are acting Jewish out of a variety of motives, it may be salutary for Jews in churches to refer to themselves as “Messianic Jews.”