“Why in the world is the Vatican attacking Israel and reverting to radical supercessionism?” asked a theologian who knows I am involved in Jewish-Christian dialogue. Supersessionism, at least in its radical form, states that the church has replaced Jewish Israel so that the Jewish covenant no longer has continuing significance. Since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has rejected this view.
The theologian was referring to oral statements that in the last few weeks have gone around the world, infuriating Jews and cheering those who think Israel is the cause of all the problems in the Middle East—statements made by the head of the commission that drafted the final statement of the Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops.
The Archbishop for Greek Melkites in the United States, Cyril Salim Bustros, declared at the end of the synod that the biblical concept of a promised land for the Jews “cannot be used as a basis to justify the return of the Jews to Israel” because the original promise made by God to the children of Israel “was nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people.”
Bustros seemed to be trying to reverse the positive momentum in Jewish-Catholic relations of the last forty years. Though speaking for himself and not the Vatican, he was reverting to the first days of the Vatican’s relations to modern Israel that Rome might rather forget. On May 14, 1948, the semi-official Vatican daily, L’Osservatore Romano, declared, “Modern Israel is not the heir to biblical Israel. The Holy Land and its sacred sites belong only to Christianity: the true Israel.”
The attitude to Israel changed over the next fifteen years as the church began to refine its understanding of the Jewish people. In the years following the Holocaust both Catholics and Protestants realized they had failed to recognize the radically Jewish character of Jesus, Paul, and Christianity itself. Led by theologians and biblical scholars such as Karl and Marcus Barth, C.E.B. Cranfield, Peter Stuhlmacher, W.D. Davies, Krister Stendahl, and E.P. Sanders, they concluded that an impartial reading of Paul’s epistle to the Romans demanded a revision of supercessionism.
As Cranfield put it, “These three chapters (Rom. 9-11) emphatically forbid us to speak of the church as having once and for all taken the place of the Jewish people.” W.D. Davies added, “Paul never calls the church the New Israel or the Jewish people the Old Israel.”
Partly stimulated by this new scholarly discussion of the Jewish covenant Paul calls “irrevocable” (Rom 11.27-29), the Second Vatican Council proclaimed in Nostra Aetate that “the Jews still remain most dear to God because of their fathers, for He does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the call He issues.” Pope Paul VI famously declared the Jews “our fathers in the faith” in a trip to the Holy Land in 1964. John Paul II spoke of the Jews “as our elder brothers in the faith,” and insisted in Crossing the Threshold of Hope that “this extraordinary people continues to bear signs of its divine election.”
Perhaps as a result of this theological development, in 1967 the Vatican stopped calling for “international status” for Jerusalem and began to urge an “international statute” that would protect the rights of two peoples and three religions, and guarantee access to their holy places.
Pope Benedict has also affirmed this continuing Jewish covenant. In Many Religions—One Covenant, he writes that Jesus’ mission was to transform the history of Israel into the history of all, but “without the abolishment of the special mission of Israel.” Jews are still “the Chosen People,” but now because of Jesus the nations “become People of God with Israel through adherence to the will of God and through acceptance of the Davidic kingdom.”
Many Catholics and Jews alike hoped that Benedict would repudiate Bustros’ remarks in his homily on the last day of the synod. Instead the pontiff called for peace and religious freedom, and urged Christians to discuss the latter in dialogue with Muslims.
If Benedict’s recent silence was puzzling, the Vatican’s general reluctance to acknowledge the importance of land in the biblical covenant has frustrated many Jews, who think that a newfound Christian appreciation of the enduring covenant with Israel should include a heightened sensitivity to the importance of the land of Israel for Jews.
They point out that the word “land” is the fourth most frequent noun or substantive in the Hebrew Scriptures—repeated 2504 times—and more dominant statistically than the word “covenant” itself. If, as the church teaches, the covenant remains, the church should also recognize that so does the call to live in the land of the covenant.
Part of the Catholic reluctance no doubt stems from the Vatican’s desire to balance its recognition of the state of Israel with Arab Catholic claims to their own share of the land and their own state. But part also stems from the Catholic belief in the extension of the biblical covenantal promises from one land to a world, when the messiah would have a universal dominion.
Yet if the prophets expanded the promised inheritance of God’s people beyond the definable boundaries of Canaan to include the world, they did not overrule the earlier promises of a particular land for a particular people—even after Israel had gone into exile because of her sins (Jer 12.14-16; 16.14-15; Ez 36.8-15). Expansion of the promise did not abrogate earlier particular promises.
As the Jewish theologian Eliezer Berkovits has put it, “The universal expectation is inseparable from Israel’s homecoming. The very passage that directs man’s hopes to the time when ‘nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more’ also envisages that ‘out of Zion shall go forth Tora [sic], and the word of the Eternal from Jerusalem.’” (He is quoting Isaiah 2.3-4.)
The Vatican need not fear that affirmation of the continuing validity of God’s covenant with his people Israel would deprive Arab Christians of their rights to land and a state. Israel has repeatedly given up land for peace (the Sinai, southern Lebanon, and Gaza), and even Netanyahu has accepted the idea of a Palestinian state. There exist many obstacles to the formation of such a state, not least of which is Hamas’ refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. But recognition of God’s ongoing covenant with his Chosen People is not one of those obstacles.
Gerald McDermott is the Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College, the editor of The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology (Oxford University Press), and author of The Great Theologians: A Brief Guide (IVP).
RESOURCES
The Second Vatican Council’s Nostra Aetate, its Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.
David P. Goldman’s Disappearing Middle Eastern Christians, Disappointing Bishops.
William Doino’s Singling Out Israel Isn’t Christian.
Comments:
For an indication of Orthodox reactions to statements like those of Archbishop Bustros, see a translation of an article in the Lebanese daily an-Nahar here:
http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com/2010/11/lebanese-bishops-meet-to-discuss-recent.html
The Jews will always be the Chosen People, because Jesus is faithful, but our faith is trust in Jesus. Only trust in Jesus saves. This is not some kind of magical incantation. There have been truly holy men in all ages and on all continents, and whether they knew the J-E-S-U-S is a personal name or not, they trusted in him. They trusted that submission to higher laws is a good in itself. They treated their neighbors fairly and charitably; they defended their communities and the right when they were threatened. They loved justice and charity and walked quietly with god. They too are Chosen.
Is this how Israel has treated the Palestinians? Or have they defiled Palestine with innocent blood?
The Orthodox Church does not support simplistic supersessionism, either. The Church is the "New Israel", but it remains the branch grafted to the stock of the old Israel. Christ fulfills the Old Covenant with Israel, but the New Covenant of his Body and Blood does not eradicate the Old Covenant, and God does not reneg on his promises.
What you really see, in statements like Archbishop Cyril's, is the inability of the Middle Eastern Christian society to shake off the habits ingrained by fourteen centuries of dhimmitude. There remains in the minds of many Middle Eastern Christians the belief if they can simply demonstrate that they are "good Arabs", they will be accepted by the Muslim majority. But that will not save them, any more than the attempt of German Jews to be "good Germans" saved them, because, in the minds of Arab Muslims, a Middle Eastern Christian is neither an Arab nor a Muslim--and nothing will change that.
Don't be an idiot. If Palestine has been defiled by innocent blood, most of it has been shed by Palestinians. And most often, at the hands of other Palestinians. If Israel behaved as, say, the Egyptians, Jordanians or Syrians behaved towards their Palestinian minorities, there simply would not be a Palestinian problem today. But did you hear any moralistic outcry then? Of course not. Ask yourself why.
This is disingenuous, since Scripture does not describe that place as "the Holy Land", but as "the Promised Land". No land may be holier than any other (but if that is the case, why should Christians be concerned with it? Or with Rome, for that matter?), but the land which God promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is still the Promised Land, for God's promises are eternal.
"Christ fulfills the Old Covenant with Israel, but the New Covenant of his Body and Blood does not eradicate the Old Covenant, and God does not reneg on his promises"
But if the promises are fulfilled what does it mean to say that the Old Covenant is not 'eradicated'? I mean, it's a bit like saying that, although the offer or promise of marriage has been fulfilled, nevertheless the offer or promise still stands.
Would not the fact that God has fulfilled his part of the Old Covenant mean that there is nothing outstanding?
God is not circumscribed. He can do anything He wants. But a God who is Truth and a God who is Love would not break his bond nor resort to falsehood or deception.
I'm no expert in the interpretation of magisterial documents, but the following would appear to be the relevant sentences from Nostra Aetate:
"As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) ...
...
... Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ."
I make no representation as to whether that addresses your question.
Stuart, I don't think you can find any patristic sources that give anything like the theology of Judaism that you're putting forward and is being put forward in this article. The particular problematic that gave rise to it in post-war Europe is completely alien to any kind of traditional Christianity, especially Orthodoxy. The notion that God continues to promise land to contemporary Jews would have been considered blasphemous by any pre-modern Christian, and depends entirely on a certain kind need to react to the Holocaust and as a political reaction to Zionism....
The covenant exists in the divine kairos, which stands outside of time, and therefore perdures for eternity.
This means that, Chosen People or not … many, many Jews are on the wrong side of things when it comes to routine matters of natural law and the Christian faith in general, and that means they are almost totally at odds with the authentic teachings and principles of Catholicism.
It also means that Jews no longer fit the conventional (and erroneous) stereotype that many Christians have in mind … and they haven’t, for almost 2000 years.
In short, Catholics must be very careful when it comes to routinely supporting those who they perceive to be “the Jews” … and/or Israel … since proper identification of the “Chosen People” is (and always has been) very problematic.
Revelation 2:9 I know thy tribulation and thy poverty: but thou art rich. And thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
The key point is that today’s authentic People of God … those “marked for salvation” and presently living under a truly salvific covenant, thanks to Jesus Christ … are Christians. Not the “Chosen People” of Israel.
The most sensitive and practical thing a Christian can do for any non-Christian is to try to clearly make that point, in a respectful, loving, and non-discriminating way.
Unfortunately, many liberal, “Jews don’t need to be evangelized” post-Vatican II Catholic church hierarchs have failed to properly preach and teach this essential truth, to the continuing detriment of Jew and Gentile, alike.
Ultimately this is a good illustration of the great Melkite tension, felt much more acutely in the Middle East than in the US, of how to react to Vatican teachings that create dogmatic novelties not found among the Orthodox...
Bustros seemed to be trying to reverse the positive momentum in Jewish-Catholic relations of the last forty years…
That sounds absurd to me — certainly a non-sequitur.
Because Bustros holds a traditional Catholic theological view (which he believes is true), he is therefore “trying to reverse the positive momentum in Jewish-Catholic relations”?
Let’s put it this way, it’s falsely judging his motives. More importantly, he shouldn't explain his belief for political reasons?
Following one of the comments in this thread … there is presently no means of determining who is a “true Jew” or not any more. If Judiasm is strictly a measure of ethnicity, then that is meaningless (and racist) from a Catholic context. If it’s an expression of religion, then what is that supposed to mean among competing branches of Judiasm (and no central authority to judge such a thing)?
It strikes me as nonsensical.
Hoping that this does not sound condescending or worse but from recent experiences , wondered if it is more difficlut for the Jewish people to have a respectful attitude towards Mother Mary - this in comparison to Islam who also not able to accept God's goodness in the Incarnational Truth yet has been able to tell their people of need to honor her !
True, for Judaism had to strugle with the consequences of false goddess worship - a very clever deception of the evil one , seemingly to thwart the rightful reverence and love meant by God , to be accorded to The Woman - and thus understandable that they can easily shy away from any thing resembling same .
The recent attack of the enemy , on those in the church named after the Lady of Deliverance possibly also in that same plan , to shake trust in her intercessory role may be but in Divine plan for a people of the Cross , can serve the cause for victory!
Land and its intimate symbolic relationship with Motherhood ...hoping that in places such as Mount Carmel , important to Israel as place of Elijah's victory over the wicked queen Jezebel and her false prophets , there would be enough gratitude for the Carmelites there who have preserved the beauty and holiness of that place ..thus the visitors there would if at all not be rushed off without giving them chance to linger and spend some time in the grounds and gift stores that support the Carmelites ...
Such acts of rightful reverence may be measures that would bring peace at far less coast ...and far greater pace ..!
This too need to be shared for sake of balance - there was a sainty looking Jewish man at the wailing wall who mentioned how he visits the Holy Sepulchre Church, to pray for Christians :).
Children of a Mother ..may be a simpler phrase that 'nullifies' more complex terms !
I have a rather hard and fast one that serves me well. If the Nazis would have killed someone for being a Jew, then that person is a Jew. Edith Stein is a Catholic saint, but in the eyes of the Nazis, Edith Stein was a Jew. I am a Melkite Catholic, but in the eyes of the Nazis--and, I dare say, a large number of Muslims, I am still a Jew.
Judaism is a religion. Jew is an ethnic identity that one cannot shed, even if one wants. In the eyes of Jew haters, it is the blood that counts.
There is a great danger to Vaticanism...it is anti-Israel...and a lot of the Arab opposition to Israel is encouraged by the Papacy...
Also, Greeks in the Middle East live and cavort with Arab Muslims...so what do you expect...?
I ask this out of genuine curiosity rather than any desire to stir up controversy. It seems to me that the modern Catholic position on Judaism and Israel comes from conflating the Jewish community and the Jewish religion. A Catholic would have to believe that the Jewish religion is untenable and heretical in its denial of Jesus as the son of God, whatever their thoughts on the ethno-religious community of Jews may be.
The whole chapter speaks of how the Jews live in ungodliness and blindness until they finally learn to accept Jesus as their savior (as St. Paul did). Here is some of that context ["them" are the Jews and "you" are the Gentile Romans Paul is speaking to]:
27: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28: As concerning the gospel, they [the Jews] are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
29: For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30: For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32: For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
I am mystified as to how this is an example of philo-Semitism. What does the Church have to say about Jews who convert to Catholicism but insist on circumcising their children and observing kosher laws? Wouldn't the Church frown upon that situation and ask the person to think a bit harder about where their faith is?
As for the state of Israel, I don't see how Christianity can consider it as anything other than another ethnic nation-state the way Greece, Poland or Germany are. Whatever religious significance that may be attached to it by religious Jews seems to be directly rebuked by the passage above.
Jesus in Mt 21:43-44 declared : 43 "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."
The Jews as a nation, thus Israel, lost their status as a chosen people of God when they rejected Jesus as God's Messiah and His call to them to enter the Kingdom of God. The historical and divine proof is the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD.
Jesus in Mt 23:38-39 declared: "38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"
The only way for the Jews to redeem their status as "Chosen People of God" is to accept Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah and become CHRISTIANS themselves.
It may be too deep and vast an area that does not afford any one person , to judge the Hand of Providence , other than to marvel when mercy in its many faces seem to be getting unfolded ..esp. towards a people who are very dear to our Lord and His Mother ..
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/exclusive-archbishop-cyril-bustros-clarifies-his-remarks-at-the-vatican-synod.html