The Pope, the "time of the Gentiles", and the "mission of Israel"

Mark Brumley, President of Ignatius Press, takes a look at one of the more challenging and (in my mind) intriguing passages in Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week:

Pope Benedict writes nothing new in Jesus of Nazareth: Part 2 when he states that the Jewish people are not collectively responsible for Jesus’ death. Readers will be pardoned if they think otherwise, since some media outlets have treated the Holy Father’s statements as if they were revelations. Perhaps that’s understandable, given the history of the relations between Christians and Jews. But it’s still not news.

Likewise, readers may think Pope Benedict has said something novel about a related topic — the conversion (or non-conversion) of Jews to Christianity. According to some reports, Christians shouldn’t try to convert Jews, in Benedict’s view. Is that so? What does Benedict actually say?

Let’s begin with what he doesn’t say. He doesn’t say that Jews shouldn’t become Christians, that Jews shouldn’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Nor does he say Christians shouldn’t try to convert Jews.

Some background should help. In speaking of Jesus’ discourse about the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 and the end of the world, Pope Benedict explains the place of evangelization in the unfolding of history. He quotes St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s words to Pope Eugene III that he needn’t concern himself with the conversion of the Jewish people; God has left the matter until the time when “the full number of the Gentiles” to become Christians has been reached (pp. 44-45). Benedict then quotes commentator Hildegard Brem, who says that Bernard’s comments reflect Roman 11:25, which Brem interprets to mean that “the Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God, ‘until the full number of the Gentiles come in’” (p. 45).

It’s clear that Benedict thinks Israel, in some sense, “retains its own mission” (p. 46). The Church’s mission, on the other hand, is to focus on the Gentiles. He interprets the Lord’s teaching about the destruction of the Temple as linked to the “times of the Gentiles” — an unspecified period between the time of Jesus and the end of the world. During the “times of the Gentiles,” “the evangelization of the Gentiles” is “the disciples’ particular task — thanks above all to the special commission given to Paul as a duty and a grace” (p. 46). In other words, the age of the Church stresses converting the Gentiles to the message of Jesus, not converting Jews.

Read the entire piece, "Jesus For Jews?", on the National Catholic Register site. Mark is co-author, with Curtis Mitch and Laura Dittus, of the Study Guide for Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week.

Comments

[Howard]

"In other words, the age of the Church stresses converting the Gentiles to the message of Jesus, not converting Jews."

I think one might reasonably ask, if this is the case, when it began to be the case. Only after the destruction of the Temple? Is this an idea that can be found in the earliest Church Fathers? I'd take this idea a bit more seriously if it could be traced back to someone like Ignatius of Antioch.

For that matter, what basis is there to assume that someone is not a "real Jew" if the rabbi down the street doesn't recognize him as such? Many Jews throughout history have converted to Christianity. Does their conversion nullify the promises of God? Are their children Gentiles and no longer heir to the promises? "Let His Blood be on us and on our children" does not separate their children from the promises -- unless they actually allow that blood to wash their robes and make them white? Does it matter if their descendants remember their heritage as long as God remembers?

[Alex]

This is the central problem with Christianity. Because Christians think they are mandated by God to convert others they will not leave people alone or in peace, and they ignore the voice of those who simply do not wish to be bothered with them. It is an intractable and insolvable problem and the central cause of so much distress in the world. I, and many others, find it misguided and deeply troubling. Many of us simply cannot understand why you would try to force your beliefs and way of living on those who are not interested in it or who are actively opposed to it. Well, it's because you believe God has told you to. This boggles my mind and is why I will always oppose Christianity.

[David]

It’s clear that Benedict thinks Israel, in some sense, “retains its own mission” (p. 46).

Yes, but what is NOT clear -- frustratingly so -- is what exactly that means. No one has yet explained the exact nature of this supposed "mission" that Israel "in some sense" retains. We keep hearing about it, but it remains a mystery. I find it frustrating because the Pope is one of the leading theologians in the Church, yet he (somewhat carelessly) tosses out this theologically portentous "Israel retains its mission" concept without bothering to explain it. This is just the sort of ambiguity that drives Traditionalists up the wall -- and some of the rest of us as well.

[David]

This is the central problem with Christianity.

Well, Alex, yes it is, if you must insist on seeing it as a "problem", and I can certainly understand why you do.

God (Jesus) tells us to preach the Gospel to all nations. It boggles your mind, and it should. It's pretty mind boggling. For those of us who believe, it's also pretty wonderful.

I wonder, though, how far will your opposition to Christianity actually go, when push comes to shove? There are those who would like to take whatever measures are necessary to shut us up. Again, how far will you go? You'll make your choice. In the meantime, we'll continue to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ.

[Howard]

@Alex: Your comment was either too weak or too strong. If Christianity is false, then you should condemn it in much stronger terms. If Christianity is true, on the other hand, then it makes sense that this truth should be shared; it is at least as important as the dangers of smoking or lead paint.

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

I believe it appropiate to question the peculiar treatment the Church grants to Jews in terms of their evangelization.

Deep roots unite us to beliefs in the Old Testament but there are, we must admit, weighty far reaching contrasts separating both sides before and after the Incarnation. Behavioral dissimilitudes among the Tribes (i.e.: the First Commandment appears); questionable creeds between Jews in Egypt and those left in Jerusalem.(Jeremiah XLIV,11-end); the Talmud coming into final redaction (the T.Jeru Shalmi in 4th cent AD/ the T.Bavli in 700 AD), to name just a few, leave the field open for exegetes as well as theologians.

[Alex]

David and Howard, I've no interest in shutting anyone up, despite the fact that I often tire of the nonsense I so often hear. I encourage you to make use of the internet, the publishing industry, of your own powers of persuasion when you encounter people in person in order to convince them of the rightness of your position. I encourage you to gather in your churches and in public squares and parks (realizing in the latter you will have to grant equal time to those of other views)to talk about what you believe and proclaim the glory of your god all you wish. I cannot be an American and feel otherwise. I would never infringe your freedom to do those things. What I will always insist you CANNOT do is FORCE adherence to your views on those who are not of your faith and have no interest in converting to your faith. Neither by meddling with the law and thus violating the separation of church and state nor by threat of force, a tool that has historically been in your arsenal. Those things I will always oppose to the very best of my ability. I hope we're clear now on where I stand on this issue.

And Howard, it actually doesn't matter to me if Christianity is true or not. What matters to me is interfering with the freedom of others. I'm all for telling people they should not smoke. I'm not willing to take their cigarettes away and lock them up so they can't get more.

[David]

What I will always insist you CANNOT do is FORCE adherence to your views on those who are not of your faith and have no interest in converting to your faith.

This is a silly strawman. Catholics have no interest in forcing people to believe. Maybe it has happened in the distant past, it doesn't happen today, and there is no credible threat that it will happen in the near future. Let's be real.

If you're concerned about the threat of force, tell it to the radical atheist groups in Spain who have promised to attack young Catholics at World Youth Day.

[Alex]

David, your Church cannot force me or anyone else to BELIEVE what you believe, thankfully. When I speak of force I refer to religious groups attempting to enact laws based upon their religious beliefs and their version of morality. The example that most easily springs to mind is the attempt to make birth control inaccessible to women. There is absolutely no logical or legal reason to do this yet because your religion insists upon it there are many of you who would make birth control impossible to obtain and seek, where you can, to at the very least, make it difficult to obtain. If this is not trying to use force to compel those not of your faith to adhere to your tenants I don't know what is. What it isn't, however, is a straw man.

[David]

... threat of force, a tool that has historically been in your arsenal.

It's been in the atheists' arsenal, too, Alex. Do you remember Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot? Open your eyes to the threats against freedom of religion, especially against Christians:

April 2011: In a broadcasting interview by ELA radio, in Madrid, a group of people who identified themselves as “representatives of different atheist groups”, expressed openly that their goals are to “punish” the Catholic belief, and to “damage” the views of Catholics. They praised the burning of churches in 1936, and they expressed their intention to “welcome” the Pope “as he deserves”, during the announced visit to Madrid in the summer of 2011.

Source: http://www.intoleranceagainstchristians.eu/index.php?id=573&user_extmininews_pi1[detailid]=291&user_extmininews_pi1[page]=1

[Howard]

Let's get back to the original post. Since neither the pope nor anyone else here was advocating forcing anyone to convert, Alex's worries are, at best, misplaced.

Here's a big part of my problem with discussing "the Jews". As most people use the word today, it means someone who is from some kind of Jewish background or culture who does not practice a religion other than rabbinical Judaism OR someone who practices Judaism. One thing all "Jews" under this definition have in common is that they cannot be Christians. Is this the definition the pope was using? Is this the definition that Brumley was using?

If it is, then we have the odd situation of Christians insisting that God gives some people special blessings for not being Christians.

If it is not, then we are talking about a different (and larger, and largely unrecognizable) group of people than most people would think when they read these statements.

In either case, these statements are essentially worthless unless the terms are clearly defined.

[David]

Alex, I see what this is about now. I was expecting you to object to laws against abortion (which are supported by non-Catholics and even by those with no particular religious affiliation), but contraception does appear, at least in the present day, to be a "Catholic" issue. However, I would encourage you to research the issue further for a better understanding. I believe that contraception was illegal in most states of this country prior to the 1950s. Now, how much influence did the Catholic Church have on state laws prior to 1950? What was the basis of the consensus on anti-contraception laws prior to 1950? What and how large a role was played by the Catholic Church in forming that consensus? Did the majority of Americans support anti-contraception laws prior to 1950, and if so, why? Was it seen as a "religious" issue per se? These are questions that you should research before so boldly asserting that Catholics who would like to limit the availability of contraception have no constitutional right to make their case.

[Jean]

Alex said, "The example that most easily springs to mind is the attempt to make birth control inaccessible to women."

Alex, I'm a news hound but I'm not sure what this refers to. Can you give a specific example? Thanks.

[Alex]

First of all David, I'm not an atheist and I do not seek the eradication of religious belief. So try not to jump to conclusions. Secondly, just as all Catholics aren't dumb enough to buy into the notion that birth control is evil (as evidenced by studies that show the majority of Catholic women use it, some of them presumably with their husbands' knowledge and consent) not all atheists are Communist monsters bent on the horrible death of the religious. If we want to play the "Who's killed the most people over the course of history?" game my money is on Christians still being well in the lead over atheists.

Lastly, nice dodge.

[Dale Price]

"just as all Catholics aren't dumb enough to buy into the notion that birth control is evil"

Quite nice, that. Puts your concern over what you imagined my child-rearing practices to be into the necessary perspective.

[Alex]

Jean there has been a host of legislation large and small this past year attempting to reduce access not just to abortion but to birth control and health care and family planning services. While most notably that has been the assault on Planned Parenthood (who does NOT use federal monies towards its abortion services) there has been other, smaller in scope,
attempted legislation as well, lauded by various religious groups, that would very negatively impact women's reproductive health and choices.

[David]

Alex, you were the one who raised the specter of "by threat of force" in your rant against Catholicism, so you invited the retort. I haven't dodged your rant, I've confronted it. The problem is that you dislike what you don't understand, yet it doesn't appear that you seek understanding. Why do you come around a Catholic site and stir up debate? Not that you're not welcomed, but what do you seek to gain? You're not exactly winning the battle for hearts and minds here. Is your intention merely to lecture us?

[David]

Alex writes:

... just as all Catholics aren't dumb enough to buy into the notion that birth control is evil...

There you have it, Catholics who are faithful to the moral doctrine of the Catholic Church are "dumb".

Hey, Alex, way to keep winning that battle for hearts and minds.

[Alex]

David I don't just boldly say Catholics have no Constitutional right to make their case against contraception. I say NO ONE has that right, period. The decision to bear children or not, just like the decision to engage in sex or not, lies SOLELY with the woman. Anything else is a completely unacceptable intrusion.

As to investigating the reasons why contraception was illegal until modern times, that's pretty simple. People were misinformed and, in many ways, flatly stupid. Your admonition to study the reasons why contraception was illegal historically makes no more sense and has no more bearing on the present than if you had told me to go back and study why slavery was legal in the past in order to justify making it legal again now.

[David]

Final comment, Alex. If you're worried about the big bad Catholic Church taking away your right to wear a rubber, don't. Societal trends are moving in quite the opposite direction. The Catholic point of view has been sufficiently marginalized in our society that you can breathe easy.

That's all from me. There is nothing to be gained by debating with anti-Catholics during Holy Week.

[Carl E. Olson]

I've posted the following on the two posts where there has been much discussion/debate re: marriage, but figured I'd post it here as well.

Where to start? Well, having now read dozens of comments by Alex, I've "learned" that the Catholic Church and orthodox, practicing Catholics are narrow-minded, hateful, angry, controlling, prone to violence, judgmental, bigoted, and unduly influential and active in the the public square. I've "learned" that Catholics provide no logical or philosophical arguments for the traditional view of marriage, sexuality, or morality, and that Catholics resort to emotional manipulation, name-calling, bullying, ranting, and misrepresentation in addressing their opponents.

I say "learned" because, of course, that is what Alex wants us (that is, those who disagree with her views) to believe. And on what basis? Well, Alex talks of having studied and read a great deal and makes claims to facts and logic. Yet her comments don't sound like those of a reasonable, careful thinker who has looked at all sides with a desire for truth. Calling Catholics who follow Church teaching "dumb" and referring to one of the Catholics here as an "utter horse's arse" because he dared to disagree with her are par for the course, but they don't provide much evidence of a tolerant, thoughtful interlocutor. Quite the contrary.

The bottom line, in looking at the long string of comments made by Alex, is that she is easily the most angry, dismissive, evasive, irrational, and demagogic of any of the commenters. And yet I've allowed her to comment for many days now, in order to see what arguments she had to offer for her two-pronged belief that the traditional view of marriage is bigoted and that any two (or more?) people who wish to be "married" should be allowed to do so; it's their "right".

Her arguments boil down to this:

1. Belief in traditional marriage is irrational, intolerant, and based solely in religion. She never addresses in any meaningful or persuasive way the fact that almost all cultures throughout history—even those that allowed polygamy—have understood marriage to involve a man and woman who united for life, who are oriented toward the procreation of children, and who form the basic, pre-political foundation for a stabile society and civilization. Rather than understand that exceptions to the rule (divorce, domestic violence, abuse, etc.) are the result of weakness, failure, selfishness, and other sins, Alex would have the exception be the rule. That is, because there are abusive husbands and failed marriages, she would prefer that marriage be redefined however she wishes, without consideration of both the ideal of marriage (rooted in religious belief, philosophical reflection, and experience born of time and trial) and the lived reality of good marriages throughout time.

2. Anyone who support traditional marriage and opposes "same sex marriage" is hateful, nasty, etc., and is trying to "force" their beliefs upon society. Here she is particularly illogical, because she insists that Christians have every right to believe as they do—as long as those beliefs remain "private" and have no effect in the public realm (never mind, I suppose, that the vast majority of Americans consider themselves "Christian" in some way). But most people recognize that social institutions, political structures, public relationships, etc. all flow from believes that inherently religious/philosophical/metaphysical in nature. They are, in the end, rooted in what one believes about man (i.e., what does it mean to be "human"? what is the meaning and point of life?) and the transcendent order (is there a God? a reality beyond this material realm?).

Put simply, her view is radically individualistic, thoroughly secular, and metaphysically incoherent. First, it's quite nonsensical to hold to the notion that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they wish as long as no one is hurt and then claim that peacefully opposing "same sex marriage" is the height of oppression and persecution. Secondly, her view of religion is condescending at best and outrightly hateful at worst. I surely defend her right to criticize religion all she wishes, but marvel that she thinks that telling Catholics they need to keep their beliefs "private" is somehow a glorious example of tolerant open-mindedness. It speaks to the sort of unreflective arrogance that she claims that infests the hearts of those who are religious. Third, she says she isn't an atheist, yet provides little metaphysical basis for her arguments. Put another way, she insists that we should simply accept her definitions of terms such as "tolerance" and "bigotry" and so forth based solely on her saying so—that is, on her authority. Needless to say, I for one remain unconvinced of the wisdom or logic of such a wild leap of faith.

For example, she says, "But you're right, I will never agree that you may enact law that enforces your viewpoint on those who do not share it." She says this regarding marriage, but it speaks to a lack of reflection on where her views logically lead, for if we cannot enact laws unless everyone agrees with them, then we simply won't have laws, as those who wish to murder, steal, rape, plunder, and swindle will oppose any laws punishing murder, stealing, etc. A society simply cannot exist without a shared identity and a common body of basic moral beliefs, which are established and enshrined in public law for the common good. These basic moral beliefs do not have to be based on religious dogma, of course, but are rooted in natural law, in what sound-thinking people recognize as good and just (rape is bad; caring for children is good; stealing is bad; charitable giving is good; and so forth). They are based in the belief that man is able to understand what is good and evil through use of reason and sound judgment.

3. Speaking of metaphysical foundations, Alex does say that "marriage" should be whatever two (or more?) people wish it to be, based in the "only basis that matters. Love". Does it need to be pointed that "love" is one of the most abused and ambiguous words of our age? My guess is that she refers to an attraction between two people that is based on a desire for emotional and sexual intimacy. But if that is so, then what to do about a brother and sister who wish to be married? Or a mother and son? If she opposed an incestuous relationship being publicly accepted as a "marriage", one would rightly wonder, "Why?" Or if she would support such a thing, one would have to wonder about the basis of her moral perspective, as incest has long been shunned and condemned by nearly every society (especially stable, long-lasting societies), regardless of religious persuasion. She does say, in one comment, that, "I do not believe in sin but rather right and wrong", but never explains what criteria she uses for judging what is "right" and "wrong", although I suspect it has something to do with "science", which she touts (unconvincingly) as an objective, impartial arbiter of truth. Saying that "love is the answer" is quite common, but usually ignores the difficult and necessary question: What is authentic love?

4. A clear theme in Alex's comments is her happy presumption of the inherent goodness of all that is modern, new, and faddish against anything that is traditional, and more than 30 or 40 years old. Her most recent comment, for example, says, "As to investigating the reasons why contraception was illegal until modern times, that's pretty simple. People were misinformed and, in many ways, flatly stupid." She continually disparages Christianity and thinks that nothing good as come from it, completely ignoring the rich and deep Christian heritage that has been (along with Judaism and Greco-Roman thought) at the root of Western civilization. Need I refer to the long list of scientific, educational, cultural, literary, and artistic achievements and endeavors that have come down to us over the centuries because of the Catholic Church and various Christian thinkers, writers, artists, scientists, etc.? I suppose I do, because she is apparently completely unaware of this fact, despite her deep and impressive studies. But she mustn't feel badly about this lack of awareness (I doubt she will feel badly about it), as it is quite common; for example, the British philosopher A.C. Grayling has shown himself to be both a chronological snob and a historically-illiterate Christian basher by taking the same sorry stance.

Finally, this important (and false) claim needs to be addressed: "I would say that your position on it [marriage] is almost entirely based upon your religion and what your religious text says or what you believe it says." Out of the dozens of comments left by Alex, I think this one is most bothersome because it reveals that either Alex is a liar or she is not nearly as learned and full of intellectual integrity as she insists she is (I'm quite sure it is the latter). While the argument for traditional marriage is often based in religious beliefs, it is not dependent on specific religious beliefs; in other words, a very strong case for traditional marriage can be made on the basis of philosophical reflection, observation, and rational argument. It has been done many times over. Most recently, it was taken up by Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson in their essay, "What Is Marriage" (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010)

The authors write, near the beginning:

"It has sometimes been suggested that the conjugal understanding of marriage is based only on religious beliefs. This is false. Although the world’s major religious traditions have historically understood marriage as a union of man and woman that is by nature apt for procreation and childrearing, this suggests merely that no one religion invented marriage. Instead, the demands of our common human nature have shaped (however imperfectly) all of our religious traditions to recognize this natural institution. As such, marriage is the type of social practice whose basic contours can be discerned by our common human reason, whatever our religious background."

The essay takes up everyone of the faulty criticisms leveled against traditional marriage, and also explains why "gay marriages" are harmful to both real marriage and the social order. I recommend it to anyone of good will and an open mind who wishes to know more about these important matters.

I am shutting down the comments on these posts because I think they have run their course (as evidenced by the increase in name-calling, mostly from the tolerant Alex) and because I wish to focus on the Triduum and Easter over the next three days. Thank you.