Jimmy Akin carefully considers Benedict XVI's thoughts on the conversion of Jews

Apologist and author Jimmy Akin has penned a lengthy and thoughtful piece on the National Catholic Register blog titled, "Pope: Don't Evangelize Jews! Really?" Here is the opening:

Pope Benedict’s remarks concerning Jewish individuals in his recent book Jesus of Nazareth (vol. 2) (GET IT HERE! GET IT HERE!) have attracted considerable attention.

For example, the book contains a passage which some have interpreted as saying that the Church should not seek to convert Jewish individuals. It is not at all clear to me that this is what the pope is saying. The passage is complex and bears more than one interpretation. So let’s dive in and see what we can make of it.

The beginning of the discussion (which is not usually quoted by people commenting on the text) is this. Starting on p. 44 of the book, Pope Benedict writes:

At this point we encounter once again the connection between the Gospel tradition and the basic elements of Pauline theology. If Jesus says in the eschatological discourse that the Gospel must first be proclaimed to the Gentiles and only then can the end come, we find exactly the same thing in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: “A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved” (11:25–26).

The full number of the Gentiles and all Israel: in this formula we see the universalism of the divine salvific will. For our purposes, though, the important point is that Paul, too, recognizes an age of the Gentiles, which is the present and which must be fulfilled if God’s plan is to attain its goal.

So Pope Benedict is contemplating the two-stages of phases of history that precede the end of the world. First, there are what Our Lord refers to as “the times of the gentiles,” in which the gospel is preached to all nations and the gentiles are given the chance to convert, and then the second stage in which the partial hardness that has come upon Israel is removed and so “all Israel will be saved”—a reference to a corporate conversion of the Jewish people at the end of history.

Note how this viewpoint differs from two rival viewpoints: First, it differs from the “Jews don’t need Jesus, they have their own covenant” perspective. This idea, which has been trendy is some Catholic circles of late, is manifestly contrary to the teaching of the New Testament and to the historic teaching of the Church’s magisterium. It also is not what Pope Benedict is advocating here. He is not saying that Jews don’t need Jesus or that they don’t need to become Christians. He is saying that they will corporately convert to Christ, but not until the end of time. Prior to that point, individual Jews may become Christians—as with the apostles and the very first Christians and with other converts from Judaism down through history. But the full, corporate conversion of Israel (which even then might not involve every single individual without exception) is something to be found only at the end of the world.

Definitely read the entire piece. Akin rightly focuses, I think, on the key distinction to be made between individuals who are Jewish and "all Israel", which is the primary focus of Benedict XVI in this section of Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week.

Also, I would point out that anyone who is inclined to say, "The Pope doesn't think Jews need Jesus in order to be saved!" that, first, the passage in question doesn't say any such thing, and secondly, it directly contradicts what Ratzinger/Benedict has said many, many times over many, many years. Here is one of many possible examples of his insistence on the unique and necessary salvific work of Jesus Christ:

In contemporary theological reflection there often emerges an approach to Jesus of Nazareth that considers him a particular, finite, historical figure, who reveals the divine not in an exclusive way, but in a way complementary with other revelatory and salvific figures. The Infinite, the Absolute, the Ultimate Mystery of God would thus manifest itself to humanity in many ways and in many historical figures: Jesus of Nazareth would be one of these. More concretely, for some, Jesus would be one of the many faces which the Logos has assumed in the course of time to communicate with humanity in a salvific way.

Furthermore, to justify the universality of Christian salvation as well as the fact of religious pluralism, it has been proposed that there is an economy of the eternal Word that is valid also outside the Church and is unrelated to her, in addition to an economy of the incarnate Word. The first would have a greater universal value than the second, which is limited to Christians, though God's presence would be more full in the second.

These theses are in profound conflict with the Christian faith. The doctrine of faith must be firmly believed which proclaims that Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, and he alone, is the Son and the Word of the Father. The Word, which “was in the beginning with God” (Jn 1:2) is the same as he who “became flesh” (Jn 1:14). In Jesus, “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16), “the whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9). He is the “only begotten Son of the Father, who is in the bosom of the Father” (Jn 1:18), his “beloved Son, in whom we have redemption... In him the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him, God was pleased to reconcile all things to himself, on earth and in the heavens, making peace by the blood of his Cross” (Col 1:13-14; 19-20).

Faithful to Sacred Scripture and refuting erroneous and reductive interpretations, the First Council of Nicaea solemnly defined its faith in: “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten generated from the Father, that is, from the being of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, through whom all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth. For us men and for our salvation, he came down and became incarnate, was made man, suffered, and rose again on the third day. He ascended to the heavens and shall come again to judge the living and the dead”. Following the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, the Council of Chalcedon also professed: “the one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man..., one in being with the Father according to the divinity and one in being with us according to the humanity..., begotten of the Father before the ages according to the divinity and, in these last days, for us and our salvation, of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, according to the humanity”.

For this reason, the Second Vatican Council states that Christ “the new Adam...‘image of the invisible God' (Col 1:15) is himself the perfect man who has restored that likeness to God in the children of Adam which had been disfigured since the first sin... As an innocent lamb he merited life for us by his blood which he freely shed. In him God reconciled us to himself and to one another, freeing us from the bondage of the devil and of sin, so that each one of us could say with the apostle: the Son of God ‘loved me and gave himself up for me' (Gal 2:20)”.

In this regard, John Paul II has explicitly declared: “To introduce any sort of separation between the Word and Jesus Christ is contrary to the Christian faith... Jesus is the Incarnate Word — a single and indivisible person... Christ is none other than Jesus of Nazareth; he is the Word of God made man for the salvation of all... In the process of discovering and appreciating the manifold gifts — especially the spiritual treasures — that God has bestowed on every people, we cannot separate those gifts from Jesus Christ, who is at the centre of God's plan of salvation". ...

Similarly, the doctrine of faith regarding the unicity of the salvific economy willed by the One and Triune God must be firmly believed, at the source and centre of which is the mystery of the incarnation of the Word, mediator of divine grace on the level of creation and redemption (cf. Col 1:15-20), he who recapitulates all things (cf. Eph 1:10), he “whom God has made our wisdom, our righteousness, and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor 1:30). In fact, the mystery of Christ has its own intrinsic unity, which extends from the eternal choice in God to the parousia: “he [the Father] chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love” (Eph 1:4); “In Christ we are heirs, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will” (Eph 1:11); “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers; those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Rom 8:29-30).

The Church's Magisterium, faithful to divine revelation, reasserts that Jesus Christ is the mediator and the universal redeemer: “The Word of God, through whom all things were made, was made flesh, so that as perfect man he could save all men and sum up all things in himself. The Lord...is he whom the Father raised from the dead, exalted and placed at his right hand, constituting him judge of the living and the dead”. This salvific mediation implies also the unicity of the redemptive sacrifice of Christ, eternal high priest (cf. Heb 6:20; 9:11; 10:12-14). (Dominus Iesus, pars 9-10, 11)

For more about Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week, visit www.JesusofNazareth2.com.

Comments

[Augustine]

Concerning Pope Benedict’s interpretation, the following reflections are offered:

-The responsibility of the Jewish people as such for the death of Christ has been the constant teaching of the Magisterium, based on Scripture and the Church Fathers. St. John speaks three times in his Prologue of the rejection of Christ by His own (meaning His own people or nation). Romans XII speaks of the rejection of Israel for the profit of the Gentiles. See also St. Augustine’s Treatise 49 On John, near the end: “The chief priests and the Pharisees took counsel together...’If we let Him alone as He is, all will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.’ Fearing the destruction of temporal things, they took no thought of eternal life, and so they lost both. After the Lord’s Passion and glorification the Romans did indeed take away both their place and their nation, by assault on the city and dispersal of the people.” The Fathers connected the punishment of the loss of the nation to the crime of deicide, perpetrated by the highest ranking political and moral authority: the Sanhedrin.

-It is important to distinguish today between the Jewish race (which has little to do with Christ’s crucifixion), present day Israel (including the Zionists who were forced to emigrated mostly from Russia), and the Jewish religion (led by rabbis, the doctrinal successors of the Sanhedrin which rejected Christ).

-As the Messiah was the whole purpose of Israel, His acceptance by many Gentiles turned them into the true Israel (according to St. Paul) and, similarly, His rejection by many Jews could not but be their undoing, since “God is not mocked.”

-Such theological interpretations, based on Romans XII, or the Jewish responsibility for Christ’s death have certainly not been the justification for any alleged Jewish persecution by the Church in the Middle Ages. Witness the sermons of St. Bernard, forbidding the killing of Jews; if there was any pressure from the side of the Church, it was not against them but on their behalf.

-Regarding the idea of dialogue vs. conversion, the late Cardinal Dulles provided a blunt assessment about ten years ago: the Church cannot curtail the scope of the Gospel without betraying Herself.

[Carsonweber]

I believe Pope Benedict misinterpreted Romans 11:25-26 because he is unaware of a surprising context unveiled by Biblical scholarship. See http://j.mp/f91uJ2 which explains this context.

In sum, “Israel” = 12 tribes. The remnant in Paul’s day consisted of Judahites (i.e., Jews, e.g., Jesus), Benjaminites (e.g., St. Paul), and Levites (e.g., St. John the Baptist).

The other tribes were assimilated among the Gentile nations following the Assyrian conquest of Israel (circa 722 BC). Yet, the prophets foretell time and time again that God will reunite all the tribes under the Davidic Messiah with the Gentiles.

How will he reunite the 12 tribes (once divided in 930 BC) if 9/12ths are no longer retrievable? By bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles. When the Gentiles come under the reign of the Davidic King in the New Covenant, guess who’s among them? Descendants of Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Zebulun, etc.

So, when “the full number of the Gentiles come in, all Israel will be saved.”

Paul is speaking about his ministry and the result it is bringing about… not some cryptic prophecy of a future mass conversion of the Jews.

Carson Weber
http://carsonweber.org

[David]

We've been having some lively discussion around this interesting and vexing topic on my blog. I've made some missteps along the way and just added a disclaimer to one of my recent posts.

http://wheat4paradise.wordpress.com/

[David]

Carson,

Thanks for reminding me how profoundly unqualified I am to comment on these theo-exegetical controversies. :-)

[David]

Carson, in your opinion, how is a person with no knowledge of biblical scholarship (or partial knowledge at best) supposed to read Romans 11:25? I mean, if the Pope himself cannot correctly interpret such an important scripture passage because he's not up to speed on the latest research, what about the rest of us?

[Sharon]

I believe Pope Benedict misinterpreted Romans 11:25-26

Carson, perhaps a more humble way of putting it would be to say that you are not in agreement with Pope Benedict's interpretation.

[Carsonweber]

David, Just get a copy of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. *smile* It explains this in detail in its treatment of Romans 11:25. That's the beauty of what Ignatius Press does - it puts Biblical scholarship in the hands of the common layperson.

Sharon, thank you.

[Lamont]

Carson,
The historical context of which you speak is common knowledge among scholars, and I am sure the Pope is well aware of it. It really is a rather unsound approach to biblical interpretation to think that what you said contradicts what the Pope said. Scripture has levels of truth and meaning that make the "my perspective is right, therefore yours is wrong" claim absolutely ridiculous.

[David]

Sharon,

It's certainly possible that the Pope misinterpreted Romans 11:25, and that there are Catholic exegetes -- who do that stuff for a living -- who have glimpsed insights that the Holy Father has missed. Benedict XVI himself would be the first to agree. :-)

Carson,

In view of the interpretation that you've mentioned here, what is your take on the controversy surrounding the Holy Father's book and the conversion of the Jews?

[Carsonweber]

David, I think it solves the dilemma. Everyone is called to become disciples of Christ. The Gospel is for the Jew first, then Gentile, as Paul says in Romans. Everyone needs to be evangelized. The idea that the Church is to focus on the Gentiles and wait for a future point in time to preach the Gospel among the Jewish people... That is based upon a misinterpretation of Romans 11:25-26. Once we see that this is a misinterpretation, the idea should be let go of.

[Matthew]

The biggest misunderstanding in all of these comments is that the Pope did NOT write this book. This book was authored by Joseph Ratzinger and hence it is as fallible as he is. So if there is a misunderstanding or misinterpretation it is NOT the misinterpretation of the pope but of Joseph Ratzinger. Personally I think it is a bad idea for a reigning pontiff to attempt to write or speak as an academic theologian but this one has chosen to do so and thus his remarks / writings should be understood as entirely disconnected from any papal teaching authority.

[Oobigan]

I like where the pope referred to the Jews as a living homily for the Church (I might have the exact wording wrong). He said we don't understand how God will bring about the corporate salvation of Israel, but it is mysteriously in God's hands. Next he quoted somebody (Bernard of Clairveaux maybe?) who wrote to a pope that it is a mystery how the gospel which spread so urgently into the world came up short at its source. Then he wrote that the Jews serve as a living homily for the Church's evangelization.

I found that to be quite a fascinating point and thought about what if Christianity began with a conversion of 100% of the Jews (hard to imagine). So if they all were absorbed from the very beginning into what became the overwhelmingly Gentile majority, then would we wonder 2,000 years later whether there ever really were Jews or whether it was all just a story? Like people wonder about Noah, the Tower of Babel, Adam and Eve becasue there is no existing evidence of them. But the Jews exist today, which is a powerful reality when teaching the faith.