1

CriticalAnalysisof:TheGiftsandtheCallingofGodareIrrevocable(Rom11:29):

AReflectiononTheologicalQuestionsPertainingtoCatholicJewishRelations1

publishedbytheCommissionforReligiousRelationswiththeJews

onDecember10,20152 byRobertSungenis,Ph.D.

OverviewThe Commissions document is the latest postVatican II attempt to forge an ecumenical andpoliticalrelationshipwiththeJews,JudaismandIsrael.TheCommissionstatesupfront,however,that the text isnotamagisterialdocumentordoctrinal teachingof theCatholicChurch,but is areflectiononcurrenttheologicalquestionsthathavedevelopedsincetheSecondVaticanCouncil.AlthoughtheCommissionadmitsthat JesusChristremainsadivisive issuebetweentheJewsandtheCatholicChurch,neverthelessitpushesforwardbytryingtominimizethedoctrinalissuesandmaximizethehumanitarianissues. Intheprocess,unfortunately,theCommissionsacrificesmajorCatholic doctrines on the altar of the Social gospel. The chief aberration in this regard is theCommissionsinsistencethatthereremainsanunrevokedandexclusivecovenantbetweenGodandIsrael, which becomes the foundation for the entire document. The Commission states that itsofficial source for Catholic/Jewish relations is Vatican IIsNostraaetate, and although admittingthatacovenantbetweenGodandIsraelcannotbeexplicitlyreadintoNostraaetate,nevertheless,the Commission argues thatNostra aetate is located within a decidedly theological frameworkregardingGods unrevoked covenant with Israel. The Commission then attempts to justify itspositionbyanunconventionalinterpretationofvariousscripturepassages(e.g.,Romans9:4;11:29;Hebrews8:113;10:9)andanuncontextualizedstatementinaspeechbyJohnPaulIIfromMainz,Germanyin1980. Intheend,onthebasisthattheJews,asareligiousandethnicbody,are inanunrevokedcovenantwithGod,theCommissionthenconcludes:(1)thecovenantputstheJewsonahigher spiritual levelwithGod than the restofhumanity; (2) as such, theCatholicChurch, as aninstitution, is not required topreach theGospel of JesusChrist to the Jews and the Jews arenotrequired to adopt it; and (3) all this is permitted because the Commission believes that Godpromised tosave the Jewsand thusHewilldosobyameansandat a timeofwhichwearenotaware. The Commission also argues that this new development in doctrine is needed becausepreachingtheChristianGospeltotheJewsoftenleadstoantisemitismandcatastrophiceventslikethe holocaust. Finally, since these newdevelopments remove themajor obstacles for both sides,CatholicsandJewscanthenproceedintheirecumenicalrelationsandsocialactionsunhamperedbydoctrinaldivides.Inthisparagraphbyparagraphcritique,weshowthatallthiskindofthinkingisindefensible.

RobertSungenis

1http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html 2 The signers to the Commissions document are: Cardinal KURT KOCH: President; The Most Reverend BRIAN FARRELL: VicePresident; The Reverend NORBERT HOFMANN, SDB; Secretary

2

Contents

Introduction 3Preface 41.AbriefhistoryoftheimpactofNostraaetate(No.4)overthelast50years 52.ThespecialtheologicalstatusofJewishCatholicdialogue 13

AnAnalysisofRomans11:29 23 3.RevelationinhistoryasWordofGodinJudaismandChristianity 274.TherelationshipbetweentheOldandNewTestamentandtheOldandNewCovenant 31 AnAnalysisofRomans9:4 325.TheuniversalityofsalvationinJesusChristandGodsunrevokedcovenantwithIsrael 40

Analysisofthe1993CatechismoftheCatholicChurch,Paragraph#121 46

AnalysisofJohnPaulIIsStatementof1980 48

6.TheChurchsmandatetoevangelizeinrelationtoJudaism 497.ThegoalsofdialoguewithJudaism 51Appendix1 54Appendix2 59Appendix3 60Appendix4 60

3

Introduction

R. Sungenis: First, my qualifications toanalyze and critique the Commissionsdocument is based on my forty years ofeducation and study in theology and biblicalexegesis, which I believe fulfills therequirementsofCanon212:23,whichstates:

The Christian faithful are free tomake known to the pastors of theChurch their needs, especiallyspiritual ones, and their desires.According to the knowledge,competence, and prestige whichtheypossess,theyhavetherightandevenattimesthedutytomanifesttothe sacred pastors their opinion onmatterswhichpertaintothegoodofthe Church and to make theiropinion known to the rest of theChristian faithful,without prejudiceto the integrity of faith andmorals,withreverencetowardtheirpastors,andattentive tocommonadvantageandthedignityofpersons.

OneexampleofhowmyexpertisehashelpedtheChurchwasdemonstratedin2008whenahighlyproblematicstatementonpage131ofthe2006UnitedStatesCatholicCatechismforAdults was officially removed. The sentencestates: Thus the covenant that God madewith the Jewish people through Mosesremains eternally valid for them. I pointedouttothebishopsthatthebasicproblemwiththe sentence is that Scripture, Tradition andthe Magisterium are quite clear that theMosaic covenant between God and the JewswasnullifiedandrevokedwhenJesusdiedonthecross.3The informationIprovidedto thebishopswascontainedina15pagecritiqueI

3 cf.,2Cor3:614;Col.2:1415;Eph.2:1415;Heb.7:18; 8:113; 10:916; Councils of Florence andTrent; Pope Pius XII,Mystici Corporis, 2930; St.Augustine,St.Thomas,etal.

wrote in 2007 specifically against the 2006Catechisms teaching.ThepaperwassentonDecember 6, 2007 to the residing generalsecretary of the United States Conference ofCatholicBishops (USCCB),MonsignorDavidJ.Malloy,STD;andtoWilliamCardinalLevada,then Prefect of the Congregation for theDoctrineoftheFaith,bothacknowledgingmypaper in return letters. Monsignor Malloysletterdeniedthattherewasanyproblemwiththesentenceonpage131,andfurtherstatedthat the Vatican had issued a recognitioapproving the2006UnitedStates catechism.An expanded version of my letters to theUSCCB and the CDF was published as anarticle in the January 2008 issue of CultureWars, edited by E. Michael Jones. Eightmonths later, inAugust2008, thebishopsoftheUSCCBvotedinexecutivesession,231to14,toremovetheproblematicsentencefrompage 131. In turn, the CDF issued a secondrecognitio in 2009 approving the USCCBsdecision. I do not reveal these facts to takepride in the matter, but only to exhibit myqualifications in critiquing the presentdocument from theCommission forReligiousRelations with the Jews published onDecember 10, 2015, which touches on thesamesubjectmatter.Although progressivists have been pushingfor the novel concept of an unrevokedJewish covenant for quite some time, the2006 United States Catholic Catechism forAdults was the first time that a specificreference to Moses was designated as theessence of an unbroken covenant betweenGod and the Jews. Prior attempts referredonly to the Old Covenant with little or nospecification as to what constituted thatcovenant. The only other specific referenceappeared in the September 1988 documentGod'sMercyEnduresForever:Guidelinesonthe Presentation of Jews and Judaism inCatholic Preaching4 authored by the United

4http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ ecumenical-and-interreligious/jewish/upload/God-s-Mercy-Endures-Forever-Guidelines-on-the-

4

States Conference of Catholic BishopsCommitteeontheLiturgy.Inthatdocumentabrief reference was made to the presumedvalidity of the Sinai covenant for the Jews(Sinai being synonymous with the Mosaiccovenant).Thedocumentstated:

6)someChristiansoverthecenturiescontinued to dichotomize the Bibleintotwomutuallycontradictoryparts.Theyargued,forexample,thattheNewCovenant "abrogated" or "superseded"the Old, and that the Sinai Covenantwas discarded by God and replacedwith another. The Second VaticanCouncil, in Dei Verbum and NostraAetate, rejected these theories of therelationshipbetweentheScriptures. Ina major address in 1980, Pope JohnPaul II linked the renewedunderstanding of Scripture with theChurch's understanding of itsrelationship with the Jewish people,stating that the dialogue, as "themeeting betweenthepeopleofGodofthe Old Covenant, never revoked byGod, is at the same time a dialoguewithin our Church, that is to say, adialogue betweenthe firstandsecondpart of its Bible" (Pope John Paul II,Mainz,November17,1980).

Sufficeittosay,neitherNostraaetatenorDeiverbumrejecttheideathattheSinaicovenant(the Mosaic covenant) was superseded,which,asweproceedinouranalysis,eventhe2015 Commission admits is absent fromNostra aetate. Additionally, I know of noofficial Catholic document that cites Deiverbum in this regard, nor do I know of anystatement in Dei verbum that teaches theMosaic covenant continues for the Jews orhasnotbeensuperseded.5

Presentation-of-Jews-and-Judaism-in-Catholic-Preaching-1988.pdf 5 In fact, Dei verbum 4 says the following, implying that all other covenants have ended and thus have been superseded by the New Covenant: The

Wewillalsoseethat,identicaltotheUSCCBs1988paper,the2015Commission,lateinthispaper,will attempt touse JohnPaul IIs lonestatement made in a 1980 speech in Mainz,Germany to a Jewish audience, the OldCovenant,neverrevokedbyGod,tosupportthe idea that some unspecified covenantexclusively between God and Israel remainsinplace.Wewillshow,however,thatnotonlyis there no precedent for interpreting JohnPaulIIswordsinsuchamanner,thepopedidnot,infact,havetheMosaiccovenant,oranycovenantexclusivetoIsrael,inmind.TheCommission:PREFACEFifty years ago, the declaration Nostraaetateof the Second Vatican Council waspromulgated. Its fourth article presents therelationshipbetweentheCatholicChurchandthe Jewish people in a new theologicalframework. The following reflections aim atlooking back with gratitude on all that hasbeen achieved over the last decades in theJewishCatholicrelationship,providingatthesame time a new stimulus for the future.Stressingonceagaintheuniquestatusofthisrelationship within the wider ambit ofinterreligious dialogue, theological questionsarefurtherdiscussed,suchastherelevanceofrevelation, the relationship between the Oldand the New Covenant, the relationshipbetweentheuniversalityofsalvationinJesus Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13). The only time Dei verbum refers to the Mosaic covenant is to affirm that it once existed: First He entered into a covenant with Abraham (see Gen. 15:18) and, through Moses, with the people of Israel (see Ex. 24:8), and The principal purpose to which the plan of the old covenant was directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ, the redeemer of all and of the messianic kingdom, to announce this coming by prophecy (see Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 1 Peter 1:10), and to indicate its meaning through various types (see 1 Cor. 10:12), (cited in 14, 15 of Dei verbum). See Appendix 1 for more information on the USCCBs 1988 document.

5

Christ and the affirmation that the covenantof God with Israel has never been revoked,and the Churchs mandate to evangelize inrelationtoJudaism.R.Sungenis:Wenote first theCommissionsbold and unqualified statement, thecovenant of God with Israel has never beenrevoked, which will be repeated in variousforms more than a halfdozen times in thedocumentand,moreorless,becomesitsmainthemeor foundation. The first problemwithsuch an unqualified statement is that thedocument never defines or clarifieswhat itsunderstandingoftheCovenantis.Unlikethe2006 United States Catholic Catechism forAdults, which specifically asserted thecovenant throughMoses as being valid fortheJewstoday,thetermsintheCommissionsdocumentareconsistentlyambiguous.WewillalsoseethesameequivocationintheCommissions use of terms such as Israel,theJews,andeventhewordrevoked.Restassured, however, that although theCommissions document is often ambiguousin its terminologyand reasoning, it isnot soequivocalinitsboldandnovelconclusions.Ineffect,theCommissionwillreachconclusionsthatarenotsubstantiatedby its terminologyorreasoning.The Commission: This document presentsCatholic reflections on these questions,placingtheminatheologicalcontext,inorderthat their significance may be deepened formembersof both faith traditions.The text isnot a magisterial document or doctrinalteaching of the Catholic Church, but is areflection prepared by the Commission forReligiousRelationswith the Jewson currenttheological questions that have developedsince the Second Vatican Council. It isintended to be a starting point for furthertheological thoughtwith a view to enrichingandintensifyingthetheologicaldimensionofJewishCatholicdialogue.

R.Sungenis:TheCommissionthusplacesitsdisclaimer early in the document so that noone will misunderstand it for an officialCatholic teaching. I applaud the Commissionfordoingso.1.Abriefhistoryof the impactof Nostraaetate(No.4)overthelast50years

The Commission: 1.Nostra aetate(No. 4)isrightlycountedamongthosedocumentsofthe SecondVaticanCouncilwhichhavebeenable to effect, in a particularly strikingmanner, a new direction of the CatholicChurch since then. This shift in the relationsof the Church with the Jewish people andJudaism becomes apparent only when werecall that there were previously greatreservations on both sides, in part becausethehistoryofChristianityhasbeenseentobediscriminatory against Jews, even includingattempts at forced conversion (cf.Evangeliigaudium, 248). The background of thiscomplex connection consists inter alia in anasymmetrical relationship: as aminority theJews were often confronted by anddependent upon a Christian majority. Thedark and terrible shadow of the Shoah overEuropeduringtheNaziperiodledtheChurchto reflect anewonher bondwith the Jewishpeople.R. Sungenis: Whether it was Nostra aetateitself or a biased interpretation of Nostraaetate that effected a change inCatholic/Jewishrelations,remainstobeseen.I am of the opinion thatNostra aetate itselfwasquite innocuous,butwhatwasreadintoit by prejudiced parties fomented sweepingchanges in the Churchs thinking.6 As theCommissionitselfadmitsinparagraph39:

6 For example, see my responses to Commission 38 on page 49. What was read into Nostra aetate may have been what previous drafts contained. After Leon de Poncins wrote his pamphlet Le Problme Juif face au Concile (The Jewish Problem Facing the Council) to alert the hierarchy to the Jewish influence on the Council, Paul VI vetoed the original

6

Because it was such a theologicalbreakthrough, the Conciliar text is notinfrequently overinterpreted, andthingsarereadintoitwhichitdoesnotinfactcontain.

Ironically, this is precisely what theCommission does in some of its handling ofNostra aetate overinterpret and readinto. The same is true of the previousCatholic/Jewish documents cited in theCommissionspaperwhichuseNostraaetateastheirauthority.7Itisquiteeasytoseethatall of them were heavily influenced by thenovel interpretation of Scripture andhistorythat becamepopular prior to Vatican II; andall were authored by those espousing leftistor liberal views of Catholic doctrine andpractice.

A good example of suchchanges in Catholic thinkingare those spawned by theFrenchJewishhistorian,JulesIsaac (18771963), when hisbook Jesus and Israel waspublished in 1947. Isaacintroduced a totally novel

interpretation of theNewTestament. Sufficeittosay,hisinterpretationputtheJewsinthebest light possible and the Catholic Churchsdoctrine and treatment of the Jews in theworstlightpossible.SeeAppendix1forthefullstory.The Commission: 2. The fundamentalesteem for Judaism expressed inNostra draft of Nostra aetate, and it exists today in a much modified form. See Appendix 1 for more information. 7 For example, the December 1974 document, Guidelines and Suggestions for the Implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostra aetate (No. 4); the June 185 document, Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church; the March 1998 document by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, and finally the May 2001 document by the PBC titled, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.

aetate(No. 4) however has enabledcommunities that once faced one anotherwithscepticismtobecomestepbystepoverthe years reliable partners and even goodfriends,capableofweatheringcrisestogetherand negotiating conflicts positively.Therefore, the fourth article ofNostraaetateis recognised as the solid foundationfor improving the relationship betweenCatholicsandJews.R.Sungenis:AlthoughNostraaetate ismoreor less idolizedby theCommission,notoncedoes it analyze the document in detail orshow where it is explicitly different thanprevious Catholic teaching on the Jews.Consequently, Nostra aetate becomes littlemorethananiconicsymbolaroundwhichallecumenical dialogue is enshrined but whichfew, if any, have actually proven the novelinterpretationstheyhaveproducedfromit.The Commission: 3. For the practicalimplementationofNostraaetate(No.4),PopePaul VI on 22 October 1974 established theCommission for Religious Relationswith theJews which, although organisationallyattached to the Pontifical Council forPromoting Christian Unity, is operationallyindependent and entrusted with the task ofaccompanying and fostering religiousdialogue with Judaism. From a theologicalperspective it alsomakes good sense to linkthis Commission with the Council forPromoting Christian Unity, since theseparation between Synagogue and Churchmay be viewed as the first and most farreachingbreachamongthechosenpeople.R. Sungenis: Here we see the Commissioninject the term chosen people as theaccepted title formodern Jewry. The fact is,however, there exists no official teaching ofthe Church that recognizes the Jews as thechosen people, except as a reference towhat theywere understood to be in theOldTestament.

7

The Commission: 4. Within a year of itsfoundation, the Holy Sees Commissionpublished its first official document on 1December1974,withthetitleGuidelinesandSuggestions for Implementing the ConciliarDeclarationNostraaetate(No.4).Thecrucialandnewconcernofthisdocumentconsistsinbecoming acquainted with Judaism as itdefines itself, giving expression to the highesteem in which Christianity holds Judaismand stressing the great significance for theCatholicChurchofdialoguewiththeJews,asstatedinthewordsofthedocument:Onthepractical level in particular, Christians musttherefore strive to acquire a betterknowledge of the basic components of thereligious tradition of Judaism: they muststrive to learn by what essential traits theJews define themselves in the light of theirownreligiousexperience(Preamble).OnthebasisoftheChurchswitnessoffaithinJesusChrist, the document reflects upon thespecificnatureof theChurchsdialoguewithJudaism.Reference ismadeinthetext totherootsofChristianliturgyinitsJewishmatrix,new possibilities are outlined forrapprochement in the spheres of teaching,education and training, and finallysuggestionsaremadeforjointsocialaction.R.Sungenis: Itgoeswithoutsaying that it isgoodtoknowonesopposition ifonedesiresto make a truce or a friendship. Hence,dialoguewiththeJewswithoutknowinghowthe Jews or Judaism defines itself wouldcertainly be a fruitless endeavor. Theproblem, as we will see, is that theCommissionrepeatedlyfailstomaketherightdecision from what it acknowledges as thedefinition that Jews and Judaism uses forthemselves.TheCommission:5.Elevenyearslateron24June1985,theHolySeesCommissionissueda second document entitled Notes on thecorrectwaytopresent the Jewsand Judaismin preaching and catechesis in the RomanCatholic Church. This document has astronger theological exegetical orientationinsofarasitreflectsontherelationshipofthe

Old and New Testaments, delineates theJewish rootsof theChristian faith, explicatesthe manner in which the Jews arerepresentedintheNewTestament,pointsoutcommonalities in liturgy, above all in thegreat festivalsof thechurchyear,andbrieflyfocuses on the relationship of Judaism andChristianityinhistory.R. Sungenis: The statement in the Notessayingit,explicatesthemannerinwhichtheJewsarerepresentedintheNewTestament,is important for us to take notice, since thetendency among themore liberal factions intheCatholicChurchforthedecadesfollowingVatican II has been to accuse the NewTestament of containing antisemiticremarks. The Gospel of John is the mostaccused, followed by theGospel ofMatthew.Likewise, the Church Fathers, especiallyChrysostom andAugustine, are often vilifiedby modern authors as being antisemitic.Curiously, few such accusations everappearedinJewishliteratureuntilJulesIsaacintroduced the concept of an antisemiticNewTestamentinthe1940s.SeeAppendix1formoreinformationonthisissue.Liberal Catholics point to the historicalcritical theory which asserts that first orsecond generation Christians, who allegedlybecame antisemitic after the crucial breakbetween the Gentile and Jewish factions inthe first century (see Acts 13:4348),redacted the original Gospel writings andfilled them with prejudicial statementsagainst the Jews. Other liberals say that theEvangeliststhemselves,aswellasPaul,werealready antisemitic due to the teachings ofJesus against the Pharisees and Sadducees.Further exacerbating the problem is thattheseaccusationsagainsttheNewTestamentaremadeinamodernpoliticalclimatethatisvoidofaspecificdefinitionforantisemitism.Nevertheless, today the popular andpolitically correct understanding of antisemitism seems to be any and all criticismlevied against Jews, Judaism, Israel orZionism, with little attention paid to themoralandethicalaspectsofthequestion.

8

TheCommission:Withregardtothelandofthe forefathers the document emphasizes:Christians are invited to understand thisreligious attachmentwhich finds its roots inBiblical tradition, without however makingtheir own any particular religiousinterpretation of this relationship. TheexistenceoftheStateofIsraelanditspoliticaloptions should be envisaged not in aperspectivewhichis in itselfreligious,but intheir reference to the common principles ofinternational law.Thepermanenceof Israelishowevertobeperceivedasanhistoricfactand a sign to be interpreted within Godsdesign(VI,1).R. Sungenis: The Commission should begivencredit for itsseparationof thepoliticalstate of Israel and the spiritual status ofJudaism, since many Christian Zioniststoday see little difference between the two.Christian Zionism sees the state of Israel asordainedbyOldTestament prophecy and asthe key element in Gods fulfillment ofeschatology (e.g.,Dispensationalism,Premillennialism, Chiliasm). However, theCommissions statement that national Israelis a sign to be interpreted within Godsdesign,isaspecialpleadingandsuperfluous,since nothing that happens in the worldescapes Gods design. To be in Godsdesigndoesnotmean, forexample, that themodernstateof IsraelwasprophesiedintheOldTestament.Rather,modern Israel, as theCommission itself suggests, is the result ofthecommonprinciplesof international law(e.g., the 1948 United Nations charter thatentitledIsraeltoaportionoflandinPalestineforpoliticalreasons,notreligiousreasons).TheCommission:6.AthirddocumentoftheCommission for Religious Relationswith theJewswaspresentedtothepublicon16March1998. Itdealswith theShoahunder the titleWe remember. A reflection on the Shoah.This text delivers the harsh but accuratejudgementthatthebalanceofthe2000yearrelationship between Jews and Christians isregrettablynegative. It recalls theattitudeofChristians towards the antiSemitism of the

NationalSocialistsandfocusesonthedutyofChristians to remember the humancatastrophe of the Shoah. In a letter at thebeginningofthisdeclarationSaintPopeJohnPaulIIexpresseshishopethatthisdocumentwill truly help to heal the wounds of pastmisunderstandings and injustices. May itenablememory to play its necessary part inthe process of shaping a future inwhich theunspeakable iniquity of theShoahwill neveragainbepossible.R.Sungenis:Thepremiseofsuchstatementsis that the Shoah is, or nearly is, anexclusively Jewish catastrophe; and by theprocessofelimination,theGentilesmustthenbedesignatedasevilperpetratorsagainsttheJews. The fact is, however, that there weremore Gentiles incarcerated and slaughteredby the Third Reich than Jews. Christians,especially Catholics, were targeted by Hitlerjust asmuch as the Jews.We should also beaware of the fact that, if the Germanconcentration camps were a Shoah for theJews, certainly the Russian camps were aShoah for Christians. At the Gulag, forexample, estimates as high as 20 milliondeaths were perpetrated on Christians byRussian commissars who werepredominately of Jewish origin. As such, theJews certainly do not have a monopoly onsuffering, but it seems that the Commission,as well as all previous Catholic/Jewishdialogues, elevate Jewish suffering and atthesametimeminimizeChristiansuffering.We must also keep in mind that Europeduring the turn of the 20th century wasoverrunbytheliberaltheologycomingoutofGermany, France, and England. This was atheology that denied the basic tenets of theChristian faith, such as the inspiration andinerrancy of Scripture; the existence of hell;the resurrection of the human body; thesecond coming of Christ and the virginbirthofChrist.ThistheologybegantoseepheavilyintoCatholicismintheearly20thcenturyandstill permeates much of Catholicism today,including Catholic seminaries anduniversities.Sincethisliberaltheologyhadan

9

aversiontothemiraculous,itdeniedheavenswarning given at Fatima in 1917 thatWorldWar II would come upon the world unlessRussiatheverycountrythatwastakenoverby the Jewish Bolsheviks in 1917 wasconsecratedtotheImmaculateHeartofMaryand converted. Instead, Catholic liberals, ledbyEdwardDhanis,S.J.,castigatedSisterLucia(thesurvivingFatimavisionary)asadeludedchild.Inlightofallthesefacts,itiseasytoseethat World War II was, as Our Lady said, ajudgment from heaven for the worlds sins.Hence, the judgmentwasnot focusedon theJews, but mainly on the liberal Christianchurches of Europe who were leading itsmembers into apostasy, and still do today.TodayattendancebyCatholics toreceive thesacraments in countries such as France,GermanyandEnglandisnowbelow15%.The Commission: 7. In the series ofdocuments issuedby theHolySee, referencemust be made to the text published by thePontifical Biblical Commission on 24 May2001, which deals explicitly with JewishCatholic dialogue: The Jewish People andtheirSacredScripturesintheChristianBible.This represents the most significantexegetical and theological document of theJewishCatholic dialogue and is a treasuretrove of common issues which have theirbasis in the Scriptures of Judaism andChristianity. The Sacred Scriptures of theJewishpeopleareconsideredafundamentalcomponent of the Christian Bible, thefundamental themesof theHolyScriptureoftheJewishpeopleandtheiradoptionintothefaith inChristarediscussed,andthemannerin which Jews are represented in the NewTestamentisillustratedindetail.R. Sungenis: The Commission consistentlyrefers to the Sacred Scripture of the Jewishpeopleorthe JewishScriptures,andothersuchsimilarterms.Thefact is,however,thatsincetheJewishreligiondescribedintheOldTestament does not exist today (i.e., there isnotemplecult;nopriestly line;nopropheticline;nogenealogicalline;nokinglyline,etc.),modern Judaism has little to do with the

Scriptures.Thisisespeciallytrueinlightofthe fact that the centerpiece of the OldTestamentwastheprophecyofthecomingofJesusChrist,whichmodern Judaismnotonlydenies but repudiates. Further, the NewTestamentexplainsthattheOldTestamentisto be preserved and interpreted exclusivelyby theNewTestament church, and it is thatChurch which now possesses the templeand the priestly, prophetic and kingly line,all ofwhich arewrapped up in Jesus Christ.Modern Judaism certainly tries its best toreproduceatleastsomevestigeoftheJewishreligion of the Old Testament for the Jewswho survive today, but this does not meanthat the Old Testament is to be relegated asthe Sacred Scripture of the Jewish people.Today, the Old Testament is the solepossession of the Christian church. ThoseJews who wish to become members of theChristianchurchbybaptismcanshareinthatownership, but the Jews at large have noownershipofanyScripture.TheCommission:8.Textsanddocuments,asimportant as they are, cannot replacepersonal encounters and facetofacedialogues.WhileunderBlessedPopePaulVIthe first steps in JewishCatholic dialoguewere undertaken, Saint Pope John Paul IIsucceeded in fostering and deepening thisdialogue through compelling gesturestowards the Jewish people. He was the firstpope to visit the former concentration campofAuschwitzBirkenautoprayforthevictimsof the Shoah, and he visited the RomanSynagogue to express his solidaritywith theJewish community. In the context of anhistoricalpilgrimagetotheHolyLand,hewasalso a guest of the state of Israel where heparticipatedininterreligiousencounters,paidavisittobothChiefRabbisandprayedattheWesternWall. Again and again he met withJewish groups, whether in the Vatican orduring his numerous apostolic journeys. SotooBenedictXVI, evenbeforehis election tothe papacy, engaged in JewishCatholicdialogue by offering in a series of lecturesimportant theological reflections on therelationship between the Old and the New

10

Covenant,andtheSynagogueandtheChurch.FollowinghiselectionandinthefootstepsofSaint Pope John Paul II he fostered thisdialogue in his own way by reinforcing thesame gestures and giving expression to hisesteemfor Judaismthroughthepowerofhiswords. As Archbishop of Buenos Aires,Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was greatlycommitted to fostering JewishCatholicdialogue and had many friends among theJewsofArgentina.NowasPopehecontinues,attheinternationallevel,tointensifydialoguewith Judaism through many friendlyencounters. One of his first such encounterswasinMay2014inIsrael,wherehemetwiththe two Chief Rabbis, visited the WesternWall,andprayedforthevictimsoftheShoahinYadVashem.R. Sungenis: Here again we see the sametheme the Shoah is being used as asympatheticrallyingpointforthetheologicalliberals who believe that all religions havespiritual rights and divine sanction,particularly modern Judaism. As such theyhavemistakenlyelevatedmodernJudaismassomething based on the Old TestamentScriptures, which are for the purpose ofproviding Judaism with spiritual rights thatareintrinsicandindependentoftheChristianchurch. The fact is, Judaism is a manmadereligion just thesameas IslamorBuddhism.In fact, it is not only amanmade religion, ithas the dubious distinction of not onlyrejecting Jesus Christ but reviling andrepudiatinghim(e.g.,theBabylonianTalmudof 600 AD claims that Jesus Christ is in hellbeing boiled in human excrement, and theBlessed Virgin Mary is a whore). At leastIslam believes that Jesus Christ was a goodman and a prophet, and the Koran extolsJesusChristandMaryinseveralplaces.The Commission: 9. Even before theestablishment of theHoly Sees Commission,there were contacts and links with variousJewish organisations through the thenSecretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.Since Judaism is multifacetted and notconstituted as an organisational unity, the

CatholicChurchwasfacedwiththechallengeofdeterminingwithwhomtoengage,becauseitwasnotpossibletoconduct individualandindependent bilateral dialogues with allJewish groupings and organisations whichhad declared their readiness to dialogue. ToresolvethisproblemtheJewishorganisationstookupthesuggestionoftheCatholicChurchto establish a single organisation for thisdialogue.TheInternationalJewishCommitteeon Interreligious Consultations (IJCIC) is theofficial Jewish representative to the HolySeesCommissionforReligiousRelationswiththeJews.R.Sungenis:Inotherwords,onlythoseJewswho are liberalminded, like the Catholicliberals, will be allowed to dialogue. Sincethere is a great divide between ReformedJudaism (which is liberal) and OrthodoxJudaism (which is very conservative), theOrthodoxJewswillhardlyhaveaplaceatthedialogue since they are not conducive toeitherecumenismorthenewworldorder.Infact, if thewish of Catholic liberals to revivethe Old Covenant for the Jews based on theJewish Scriptureswere to be accepted andput intopracticebyOrthodox Jews, then theCatholicsshouldfearfortheirlives,sinceoneof the prominent themes of the OldTestamentistoputtodeathanyonewhowillnot accept the theological doctrines andpracticesofancientJudaism.The Commission: 10. The IJCIC began itswork in1970, andayear later the first jointconference was organized in Paris. Theconferences which have been conductedregularly since are the responsibility of theentity known as the International CatholicJewish Liaison Committee (ILC), and theyshape the collaboration between the IJCICand the Holy Sees Commission. In February2011,oncemoreinParis,theILCwasabletolook back with gratitude on 40 years ofinstitutional dialogue. Much has developedover the past 40 years; the formerconfrontation has turned into successfulcooperation, the previous potential forconflict has become positive conflict

11

management, and the past coexistencemarked by tension has been replaced byresilientand fruitfulmutuality.Thebondsoffriendship forged in the meantime haveproved to be stable, so that it has becomepossible to address even controversialsubjects together without the danger ofpermanent damage being done to thedialogue. This was all the more necessarybecause over the past decades the dialoguehad not always been free of tensions. Ingeneral, however, one can observe withappreciation that in JewishCatholic dialoguesincethenewmillenniumaboveall,intensiveefforts have been made to deal openly andpositively with any arising differences ofopinion and conflicts, in such a way thatmutualrelationshavebecomestronger.R. Sungenis: There is certainly nothingwrong with the Catholic Church holdingdialogueswiththeJewsandthosewhofollowJudaism. The problem is that the kind ofdialoguesenjoinedbyCatholic liberals isnotthe kind that seeks to gently persuade hisJewish counterpart about the joys andbenefitsofacceptingJesusChristasLordandSavior. That kind of dialogue is totally offlimits.Liberalssimplywillnotallowanyhintof converting someone away from anotherreligion. It would spoil the very reason fortheir liberalism freedom of religion. Theyalso realize that any such conversion talkwill stop the Catholic/Jewish dialogue itstracks. Thiswill result in the Jews,and theirdeep pockets, refusing to have anycooperation with the Church in the allimportant social issues that are common toboth parties. Essentially, the gospel that ispropagated today by Catholic liberals is asocial gospel, the same as it is for theProtestant liberals (and as a result both areseeingtheirchurchesemptiedtothebone).Itminimizes creeds and doctrines (since theyare deemed divisive) andmaximizes socialcauses(e.g.,feedingthepoor,climatechange,etc.). The liberals have so diluted theChristian faith of its former doctrines (e.g.,salvation only to those who accept JesusChrist) and morals (e.g., accepting the

homosexual lifestyle as worthy of salvation)that they have few, if any, barriers toaccepting other religions as recipients ofsalvation. In fact, most liberals believe thatthe whole world is either already saved orwill be saved. Of course, the liberals believethat those who dont accept their socialgospel are closeminded religionistswhoareonly interested in doctrine but have no lovefor humanity. This battle has been going onever since the 1700s when the ProtestantReformationdevelopedintoPostreformationliberalism. It then seeped into the CatholicChurch in the mid1800s and became fullblown in the 1940s, leading to Vatican II inthe1960sanditspresentmodernaftermath.In fact, the Catholic liberals did in 50 yearswhat it took the Protestant liberals to do in300years.The Commission: 11. Beside the dialoguewith the IJCIC we should also mention theinstitutional conversation with the ChiefRabbinateofIsrael,whichisclearlytobeseenasafruitoftheencounterofSaintPopeJohnPaul II with both Chief Rabbis in Jerusalemduringhis visit to Israel inMarch2000. Thefirstmeetingwas organised in June 2002 inJerusalem,andsincethensuchmeetingshavebeen conducted annually, taking place inRome and Jerusalem alternately. The twodelegationsarerelativelysmallsothataverypersonaland intensivediscussiononvarioussubjectsispossible,suchasonthesanctityoflife,thestatusofthefamily,thesignificanceofthe Sacred Scriptures for life in society,religious freedom, the ethical foundations ofhuman behaviour, the ecological challenge,the relationship of secular and religiousauthority and the essential qualities ofreligious leadership in secular society. Thefact that the Catholic representatives takingpart in themeetings are bishops andpriestsand the Jewish representatives almostexclusivelyrabbispermitsindividualtopicstobe examined from a religious perspective aswell.ThedialoguewiththeChiefRabbinateofIsrael has to that extent enabledmore openrelationsbetweenOrthodox Judaismand theCatholic Church at a global level. After each

12

meeting a joint declaration is publishedwhich in each instance has testified to therichness of the common spiritual heritage ofJudaismandChristianityandtowhatvaluabletreasures are still to be unearthed. Inreviewing over more than ten years ofdialogue we can gratefully affirm that astrong friendship has resulted whichrepresentsafirmfoundationforthefuture.R. Sungenis: Yes, we must agree that astrong friendship has resulted whichrepresents a firm foundation for the future,as long as theCatholic side does not tell theJewishside that itmustrepentof itssins,bebaptized, and accept JesusChrist as theonlyLordandSavior.Inotherwords,theCatholicsidehasdecidednottodowhatPeterdidforthe Jews when he told them they wereresponsibleforthedeathofChristandthatinorder to receive Gods mercy for such aheinousacttheymustrepentandbebaptizedin the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:128). Inother words, the Catholic liberals of todayhavecompletelylostsightofwhattheGospelis.Theyaremuchmoreinterestedinshakinghandsandbeingnicetoeveryonesothattheycan convince themselves that they arepreachingtheGospelbysocialaction.TheCommission:12.TheeffortsoftheHolySeesCommissionforReligiousRelationswiththe Jews cannot of course be restricted tothese two institutional dialogues. TheCommissionaims in fact atbeingopen toallstreams within Judaism and at maintainingcontact with all Jewish groupings andorganisationsthatwishtoestablishlinkswiththe Holy See. The Jewish side shows aparticular interest in audiences with thePope, which are in every instance preparedby the Commission. Besides direct contactswithJudaismtheHolySeesCommissionalsostrives to provide opportunities within theCatholic Church for dialogue with JudaismandtoworktogetherwithindividualBishopsConferences to support them locally inpromoting JewishCatholic dialogue. Theintroduction of the Day of Judaism in someEuropeancountriesisagoodexampleofthis.

R.Sungenis:AsGeorgeOrwelloncesaid,Wehave now sunk to a depth at whichrestatementoftheobviousisthefirstdutyofintelligent men. Or, as St. Clement ofAlexandria said, When lies have beenaccepted for some time, the truth alwaysastounds with an air of novelty. For theCatholic Church to promote a Day ofJudaismmeansitispromotingareligionthatdenies and repudiates the very core of theChristian faith, namely, Jesus Christ. Lets beclear. Judaism thoroughly and completelyrejects Jesus Christ. But since the CatholicChurchs liberalism has sunk to depths inwhich, as Isaiah theprophetoncewarned tothe apostate of his day, right is wrong andwrongisright,wemustrestatetheobviousJudaismrejects JesusChrist and is thusantiChrist or antiChristian. Judaism is not thefriend of the Christian faith. It is its mostbitter and vociferous antagonist, no matterhow inviting its political,monetary or socialgesturesmaybe.HistoryshowsthattheonlyreasonthatmembersofJudaismwanttohavean audience with the Pope is to influencehimtoaccept Judaismasaviablereligiononpar with Christianity, and so far they aresucceedingandthepopesarebeingdeceived(SeeAppendix1formoreinformationonthisphenomenon).TheCommission:13.Over thepastdecadesboththedialogueadextraandthedialoguead intra have led with increasing clarity tothe awareness that Christians and Jews areirrevocably interdependent, and that thedialogue between the two is not amatter ofchoice but of duty as far as theology isconcerned. Jews and Christians can enrichone another in mutual friendship. Withouther Jewish roots the Church would be indanger of losing its soteriological anchoringin salvation history and would slide into anultimatelyunhistoricalGnosis.R.Sungenis:Itiscertainlytruethatwithouther Jewish roots the Church would be indanger of losing its soteriological anchoringin salvation history and would slide into anultimately unhistorical Gnosis. In fact, we

13

cangoastepfurtherandstateunequivocallythat without her Jewish roots the Churchwould not exist. The problem, however, isthatmodernday JudaismdoesnotrepresenttheJewishrootsfromwhichtheChurchhasits soteriological anchoring. ModerndayJudaism is a hydra, not a root. In fact,modernday Judaism rejects its own Jewishroots; or, rather, picks and chooses whatrootsitwillaccept,favoringtheceremonialtrappings over the theological substance asubstancewhosefoundationisJesusChrist.The Commission: Pope Francis states thatwhile it is true that certainChristianbeliefsare unacceptable to Judaism, and that theChurchcannotrefrainfromproclaimingJesusas Lord and Messiah, there exists as well arichcomplementaritywhichallowsustoreadthe texts of the Hebrew Scriptures togetherandtohelponeanothertominetherichesofGodsword.We can also sharemany ethicalconvictionsandacommonconcernforjusticeand the development of peoples (Evangeliigaudium,249).R.Sungenis: Inphysics,whathappenswhenan irresistible force meets an immovableobject? The same that happens when areligionthathasJesusChristatitscoremeetsareligionthat,atitscore,rejectsJesusChrist.Theirresistibleforcewillbreakapartandtheimmovable objectwill bend. In otherwords,bothwill be compromised. Both parties willthen dress up the compromise as a richcomplimentarity which allows usto minetherichesofGodsword,andtheywill limitthe product of their mutual research toethical convictions and a common concernfor justice and development of peoples. Inother words, they can pretend that theirmutual earthly endeavors will be judged byGod as sufficient for their mutual heavenlyreward,eventhoughtheirresearchhasbeenirreparably taintedbya rejectionof itsmaininterpretive guide Jesus Christ. Instead ofthe Christian side taking its model from St.Paulandseeking toconvince the Jewishsidethat the Hebrew Scriptures focus on thevery individual(JesusChrist) that the Jewish

sidehasrejected,themodernCatholicChurchhasdecidedthattheconversionapproachisobsolete and even harmful since variousJewish authors claim that it is antisemiticand consequently ends up producingcatastrophesliketheShoah.2.ThespecialtheologicalstatusofJewishCatholicdialogue.The Commission: 14. The dialogue withJudaism is for Christians something quitespecial, since Christianity possesses Jewishrootswhichdeterminerelationsbetweenthetwoinauniqueway(cf.Evangeliigaudium,247).Inspiteofthehistoricalbreachandthepainful conflicts arising from it, the Churchremains conscious of its enduring continuitywithIsrael.R.Sungenis:NoticehowtheCommissionhasjuxtaposedthetermsdialoguewithJudaismand enduring continuity with Israel.Previouslyin#5theCommissionstated:TheexistenceoftheStateofIsraelanditspoliticaloptions should be envisaged not in aperspectivewhichis in itselfreligious,but intheir reference to the common principles ofinternational law. So if Israel is only apoliticalentityandnotitselfreligious, thenhow can the Church have an enduringcontinuity with Israel? Other than thepresent nationstate of Israel, Israel doesnot exist, so there is no other Israel withwhich the Church has an enduringcontinuity. Unfortunately, the modern stateofIsraelcontinuestodothesamethingitdidwhen it was a nationstate in the firstcenturydeny Jesus Christ as its Lord andSaviorthe very reason that Pope Pius Xdenied to Theodore Herzl any blessing inhavingtheJewsgobacktoIsrael.8

8 Pius X stated to Herzl: We cannot give approval to this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalembut we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything

14

The Commission: Judaism is not to beconsidered simply as another religion; theJews are instead our elder brothers (SaintPope John Paul II), our fathers in faith(BenedictXVI).JesuswasaJew,wasathomein the Jewish tradition of his time, and wasdecisively shaped by this religious milieu(cf.Ecclesia inMedioOriente, 20).His firstdisciples gathered aroundhimhad the sameheritageandweredefinedbythesameJewishtradition in theireveryday life. Inhisuniquerelationship with his heavenly Father, Jesuswas intent above all on proclaiming thecoming of the Kingdom of God. The time isfulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand,repentandbelieveinthegospel(Mk1:15).R. Sungenis: The Old Testament Jews werecertainlyourelderbrothersandfathers inthefaith.Oneonlyhastoreadthelonglistofthe Jewishheroesof the faith inHebrews11toknowthat the Jewsofoldbelieved inGodlong before the Christian church wasestablished.Butagain,theproblemwithsuchreligious references is that they fail todistinguish the divine religion of the Jews inthe Old Testament from the moderndayJudaism that essentially rejects the Jewishreligion of the Old Testament. Abrahamlooked forward to Christ (John 8:56).Moseslooked forward to Christ (Hebrews 11:26).David looked forward to Christ (Acts 2:25).The Jews of today neither look forward toChrist nor backward to Christ. Even theMessiah that theOrthodox Jewswait for isnot Jesus Christ but some other messianicpersonage,fortheyhaverejectedJesusChrist,bornofDavidandMary,asthetrueMessiah. different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people. Italian: Noi non possiamo favorire questo movimento. Non potremo impedire gli Ebrei di andare a Gerusalemmema favorire non possiamo mai. La terra di Gerusalemme se non era sempre santa, santificata per la vita di Jesu Christo (he did not pronounce it Gesu, but Yesu, in the Venetian fashion). Io come capo della chiesa non posso dirle altra cosa. Gli Ebrei non hanno riconosciuto nostro Signore, perci non possiamo riconoscere il popolo ebreo."

Hence, those who call themselves Jewstoday are not our elder brothers or ourfathersinthefaith.Theyareimposterswhohave created their own religion that iscamouflaged to look like the legitimatereligionoftheOldTestamentJews,especiallyindialoguewithCatholics.TheCommission:WithinJudaismthereweremanyverydifferentkindsof ideas regardinghow the kingdom of God would be realised,and yet Jesus central message on theKingdom of God is in accordancewith someJewish thinking of his day. One cannotunderstand Jesus teaching or that of hisdisciples without situating it within theJewish horizon in the context of the livingtraditionof Israel;onewouldunderstandhisteachings even less so if they were seen inoppositiontothistradition.InJesusnotafewJews of his time saw the coming of a newMoses, the promised Christ (Messiah). Buthis coming nevertheless provoked a dramawith consequences still felt today. Fully andcompletely human, a Jew of his time,descendantofAbraham,sonofDavid,shapedby the whole tradition of Israel, heir of theprophets, Jesus stands in continuitywith hispeople and itshistory.On theotherhandheis, in the light of the Christian faith, himselfGod the Son and he transcends time,history, and every earthly reality. Thecommunity of those who believe in himconfesseshisdivinity(cf.Phil2:611).Inthissense he is perceived to be in discontinuitywith the history that prepared his coming.FromtheperspectiveoftheChristianfaith,hefulfilsthemissionandexpectationofIsraelinaperfectway.Atthesametime,however,heovercomes and transcends them in aneschatological manner. Herein consists thefundamentaldifferencebetweenJudaismandChristianity,thatis,howthefigureofJesusistobeevaluated.JewsareabletoseeJesusasbelonging to their people, a Jewish teacherwhofelthimselfcalled inaparticularwaytopreach the Kingdom of God. That thisKingdom of God has come with himself asGodsrepresentativeisbeyondthehorizonofJewish expectation. The conflict between

15

JesusandtheJewishauthoritiesofhistimeisultimately not a matter of an individualtransgressionofthelaw,butofJesusclaimtobeactingwithdivineauthority.The figureofJesus thus is and remains for Jews thestumbling block, the central and neuralgicpoint in JewishCatholic dialogue. From atheological perspective, Christians need torefer to the Judaism of Jesus time and to adegreealso the Judaismthatdeveloped fromit over the ages for their own selfunderstanding. Given Jesus Jewish origins,coming to termswith Judaism inonewayoranother is indispensable for Christians. Yet,the history of the relationship betweenJudaism and Christianity has also beenmutuallyinfluencedovertime.R. Sungenis: After reading the aboveparagraph I can certainly conclude that Iwouldnotwant the jobof theVaticaneditorwho has the unenviable job of trying tomixthe oil of Christianity with the water ofmodernday Judaism.Themental gymnasticsthatthisauthorhadtogothroughinordertofind some happy medium to make both theCatholic and Jewish sides comfortable is awonder in itself. As usually happens in suchcases,wewillseetheauthorfirstsupportingtheCatholicside; thensupportingthe Jewishside; and then trying to find the rightwordstomakethedifferingsidesbalance,butneverquitefindinganidealdescriptionsince,asheverywellknowsbeforehestarts, there isnosuchidealbalance.Theonlybalancepossibleiscompromisefromoneorbothsides.Aswewill see, the Catholic side compromises byregarding modernday Judaism as a viablereligion that should not have the ChristianGospel preached to it so as to avoid antisemitism and future Shoahs; and the Jewishside compromises by, well, allowing theCatholics to compromise so that it can haveJewishcooperation(i.e., Jewishmoney) in itsallimportantsocialcauses.TheCommission:15.DialoguebetweenJewsand Christians then can only be termedinterreligious dialogue by analogy, that is,dialogue between two intrinsically separate

anddifferentreligions. It isnot thecase thattwofundamentallydiversereligionsconfrontone another after having developedindependently of one another or withoutmutualinfluence.ThesoilthatnurturedbothJews and Christians is the Judaism of Jesustime, which not only brought forthChristianity but also, after thedestructionofthe temple in the year 70, postbiblicalrabbinical Judaism which then had to dowithout the sacrificial cult and, in its furtherdevelopment, had to depend exclusively onprayerandtheinterpretationofbothwrittenand oral divine revelation. Thus Jews andChristianshave the samemotherandcanbeseen, as it were, as two siblingswho as isthe normal course of events for siblings havedevelopedindifferentdirections.R.Sungenis:Oneof thesecretstomixingoilandwaterisnottousetheanalogyofmixingoil andwater since everyone knows that oiland water do not mix. It is better to useanalogies such as two siblings who havedevelopedindifferentdirections,thusgivingthe impression that both sides havelegitimacy to exist and it is just a matter oftoleratingoneanother.ThusCatholicliberalsmust create a Jewish sibling with whomthey can dialogue who seems every bit aslegitimate as their Old Testament Jewishforebears.Thisisaccomplishedbyconvincingthe reader that the postbiblical rabbinicalJudaism which then had to do without thesacrificialcultand, in its furtherdevelopment,had to depend exclusively on prayer and theinterpretationofbothwrittenandoraldivinerevelation,wasalegitimateextensionoftheJudaism of Jesus time. But he does sowithout the slightest theological proof orconciliarorpatristicwitness.Oncethereaderaccepts that there is no distinction betweentheJudaismofJesustimeandpostbiblicalrabbinical Judaism, the stage is set tomakethe grandiose conclusion that Jews andChristianshavethesamemother.Hereisthereality, however: although Abraham, Mosesand David have the same mother asChristianssincetheyallbelievetheyhavethesamebrother,namely,JesusChrist,modern

16

day Jews, since theyreject JesusChristandthus reject Abraham, Moses and Daviddonot have the same mother as Christians. Asnoted previously, postbiblical rabbinicalJudaism, as represented in the BabylonianTalmud, calls the mother of Christianity awhore.Hence,iftheauthorinsistsonusingthe analogy of brothers from the samemother to describe the relationship ofChristianity and Judaism, then the onlyproperanalogyistheonethatScriptureitselfuses, namely, that of Jacob and Esau. JacobwouldrepresentChristianity;andEsauwouldrepresent postbiblical rabbinical JudaismthatrejectedGod(cf.Romans911;Hebrews11:1617).TheCommission: The Scriptures of ancientIsrael constitute an integral part of theScriptures of both Judaism and Christianity,understood by both as the word of God,revelation,andsalvationhistory.R. Sungenis: Again, we must interject thatmodernday Judaism is not a religion of theOldTestament. It isahybridof theologyandphilosophy that picks and chooses from theOld Testament that which best fits with itsmodern religious ideals.Consequently, ithasa distorted image of God, revelation andsalvation,andisinneedofatotalreeducationbytheChristianChurch.Unfortunately,underpressure from modernday Judaism, themodernday Church has decided to foregosuch reeducation. It has decided to create ahybridJudeoChristianreligionthatacceptsJudaism as a Godfearing, Godobeying, GodendearingentitytothepointthatJudaismhasno need of the Christian Gospel and, in fact,will faremuch betterwithout it since itwillnow face no threat of antisemitism andfutureShoahs.The Commission: The first Christians wereJews; as amatterof course theygatheredaspartofthecommunityintheSynagogue,theyobserved the dietary laws, the Sabbath andtherequirementofcircumcision,whileatthesametimeconfessing Jesusas theChrist, the

MessiahsentbyGodforthesalvationofIsraelandtheentirehumanrace.R. Sungenis: The Commissions abovedescription of first century Christianity isdistorted. Paul sometimes met the Jews intheir synagogues but only to preach theGospel of Jesus Christ to them, not forChristian worship (cf. Acts 13:1415; 14:1;17:12). Christian worship took place inhousechurches(cf.Rom.16:5;1Cor16:19;Col.4:15).Asforcircumcision,itwasoptionalfortheChristian(asnotedinActs16:3whenPaulcircumcisedTimothyinordertomakeiteasier for Timothy to evangelize the Jews),but circumcision was strictly forbidden forreligiousreasons,whichPaul showedclearlywhen he refused to circumcise Titus (Gal.2:3).TheissueofcircumcisionwassettledattheCouncilof Jerusalemaround50AD(Acts15),whereitwasdecidedthatnoonewouldbe required to be circumcised for religiousreasons. Dietary laws were also voluntary,but threewere required fora timesoasnotto offend Jewish Christians needlessly (seeActs 15:29). Later, however, Paul began toremove this requirement from the churches(See1Corinthians8and10).TheCommission:WithPaultheJewishJesusmovement definitively opens up otherhorizons and transcends its purely Jewishorigins.Graduallyhisconceptcametoprevail,thatis,thatanonJewdidnothavetobecomefirst a Jew in order to confess Christ. In theearly years of the Church, therefore, therewere the socalled Jewish Christians and theGentile Christians, theecclesia ex circumciseioneand theecclesia ex gentibus, one Churchoriginating from Judaism, theother from theGentiles, who however together constitutedtheoneandonlyChurchofJesusChrist.R. Sungenis: The point in fact is that theChurch made the transition from a Jewishaccommodated Church to a totally nonJewishaccommodatedChurch,whichbecamethe paradigm from the second centuryonward.

17

TheCommission: 16. The separation of theChurch from the Synagogue does not takeplace abruptly however and, according tosome recent insights, may not have beencomplete until well into the third or fourthcenturies.R. Sungenis: Since the Commission fails tofootnotewhatrecent insights it isreferringto as its authority, its argument isunconvincing. I dont know of even onereputable or authoritative source that saysChristianity was still connected to thesynagogue into the third or fourthcenturies. Even if there were some Jewishremnants at such a late date, the stricturescitedaboveforJewishChristianswereputinplace early in the first century. Those whodidnt abide by them centuries later weredoingsowithoutecclesialauthorization.The Commission: This means that manyJewish Christians of the first period did notperceive any contradictionbetween living inaccordance with some aspects of the Jewishtradition and yet confessing Jesus as theChrist. Only when the number of GentileChristians represented the majority, andwithin the Jewish community the polemicsregardingthefigureofJesustookonsharpercontours, did a definitive separation appearto be no longer avoidable. Over time thesiblingsChristianityandJudaismincreasinglygrew apart, becoming hostile and evendefamingoneanother.R. Sungenis: Notice how the Commissiontries to make a seamless garment betweenJewish Christians who were still practicingsome aspects of the Jewish tradition andJudaism of the third or fourth centuriesthatgrewapartfromChristianity.WhattheCommission fails to realize is that theJudaism that grew apart from Christianitywasnot composedof JewishChristianswho,againsttheCouncilof JerusalemandSt.Paul,insistedonkeepingtheirJewishtradition,butJewswho totally rejected Christianity in thefirstcenturyanddecidedtogotheirownway.

ThisbreakbetweenChristianityandJudaismisclearlydemarcated inActs13:4348,asSt.Paulsays:

43And when the meeting of thesynagogue broke up, many Jews anddevout converts to Judaism followedPaulandBarnabas,whospoketothemandurgedthemtocontinueinthegraceof God. 44The next sabbath almost thewhole city gathered together to heartheword of God. 45Butwhen the Jewssaw the multitudes, they were filledwith jealousy, and contradicted whatwas spoken by Paul, and reviled him.46And Paul and Barnabas spoke outboldly, saying, It was necessary thatthewordofGodshouldbespokenfirsttoyou.Sinceyouthrustitfromyou,andjudge yourselves unworthy of eternallife, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.47For so the Lord has commanded us,saying, Ihave setyou tobea light forthe Gentiles, that you may bringsalvation to the uttermost parts of theearth. 48Andwhen theGentiles heardthis, they were glad and glorified theword of God; and as many as wereordainedtoeternallifebelieved.

TheCommission: For Christians, Jewswereoften represented as damned by God andblind since theywereunable to recognise inJesustheMessiahandbearerofsalvation.R. Sungenis: The Commission is acting as ifthis were completelywrong. The fact is, theNewTestamentteachesthattheJewsatlargehave been hardened in their unbelief andtherewillbeonlyaremnantthatturnbacktoGod.WhatelseisaChristiantogleanfromSt.Pauls teaching in Romans 11:110 as anexplanation for why a majority of Jewsthroughout the first century and beyondrefusedtobowthekneetoChrist?Letsreadhiswords:

1I ask, then, has God rejected hispeople? By no means! I myself am an

18

Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, amemberof the tribeofBenjamin. 2Godhas not rejected his people whom heforeknew. Do you not know what thescripture saysof Elijah, howhepleadswith God against Israel? 3Lord, theyhave killed thy prophets, they havedemolished thy altars, and I alone amleft,andtheyseekmylife.4ButwhatisGods reply to him? I have kept formyself seven thousandmenwho havenotbowedthekneetoBaal.5Sotooatthe present time there is a remnant,chosenbygrace.6Butifitisbygrace,itis no longer on the basis of works;otherwise grace would no longer begrace. 7What then? Israel failed toobtain what it sought. The electobtainedit,buttherestwerehardened,8asitiswritten,Godgavethemaspiritofstupor,eyesthatshouldnotseeandearsthatshouldnothear,downtothisvery day. 9And David says, Let theirtable become a snare and a trap, apitfall and a retribution for them; 10lettheir eyes be darkened so that theycannot see, and bend their backs forever.

TheCommission: For Jews, ChristianswereoftenseenashereticswhonolongerfollowedthepathoriginallylaiddownbyGodbutwhowenttheirownway.It isnotwithoutreasonthatintheActsoftheApostlesChristianityiscalled theway (cf.Acts9:2;19:9,23;24:14,22) in contrast to the JewishHalachawhichdetermined the interpretation of the law forpractical conduct. Over time Judaism andChristianity became increasingly alienatedfromoneanother,evenbecominginvolvedinruthlessconflictsandaccusingoneanotherofabandoningthepathprescribedbyGod.R.Sungenis:Again,theCommissionseemstobetryingtosaythatallsuchconflictbetweenChristianity and Judaism is wrong orabnormal, and that the Commission, aftertwenty centuries, now has a better way forJewsandChristians to relate tooneanother,which, in a nutshell, is for the Church to

refrain frompreachingthestumblingblock(JesusChrist)totheJewssinceitmightbreedantisemitismand future Shoahs. The fact is,the original conflictwas caused by the Jews.The very book of Acts from which theCommission quotes is filled with story afterstoryoftheJewschasingdownPeterandPaulsimply because they were preaching JesusChrist. Neither Peter nor Paul started anyconflictswiththeJewsandtheydidnotseekto kill the Jews, but the Jews sought to killthem. Unfortunately, the Commission seemsbent on making the issue a competitionbetween Jews and Christian rather than amatterofeternaltruthversuseternalerror.TheCommission:17.OnthepartofmanyoftheChurchFathersthesocalledreplacementtheory or supersessionism steadily gainedfavouruntilintheMiddleAgesitrepresentedthe standard theological foundation of therelationshipwith Judaism: the promises andcommitments of Godwould no longer applyto Israelbecause it hadnot recognised Jesusas theMessiah and the Son of God, but hadbeentransferredtotheChurchofJesusChristwhichwasnowthetruenewIsrael,thenewchosenpeopleofGod.R.Sungenis:Noticeby theuseof thewordssocalledandtheoryhowtheCommissionimplies that supersessionism was not anofficialbeliefoftheChristianchurchbutwasmerely a majoritydetermined idea thatgainedfavorbyitsownsteam,asitwere.Thefactis,supersessionism(thedoctrinethattheNew Covenant replaced the Old Covenant)had a consensus in the patristic period andwas formalized into Catholic doctrine invariouscouncilsoftheMiddleAges,includingtheCouncilsofFlorenceandTrent.TheCommission:Arisingfromthesamesoil,JudaismandChristianityinthecenturiesaftertheir separation became involved in atheologicalantagonismwhichwasonlytobedefusedattheSecondVaticanCouncil.

19

R. Sungenis: Let us remember that thetheological antagonism into which theCommissionwishestocouchthecontroversyis none other than the fact that for twentycenturiespriortotheSecondVaticanCouncilthe Jews at large refused to accept JesusChrist as the Lord and Savior. Hence, thistheologicalantagonismcouldnothavebeendefusedattheSecondVaticanCouncil,sincethe Jews continued their refusal to acceptChristduringandaftertheCouncil.The Commission: With its DeclarationNostra aetate(No. 4) the Churchunequivocally professes, within a newtheological framework, the Jewish roots ofChristianity.R. Sungenis: The Commission makes itappearasiftheJewishrootsofChristianityis some new breakthrough discovered byVatican II, but it is an old idea rooted in thewritingsof theChurchFathersand taught inScripture. But one thing needs to be madeclear; the Jewish roots are from the OldTestament, not from postbiblical rabbinicalJudaism.The Commission: While affirming salvationthrough an explicit or even implicit faith inChrist, the Church does not question thecontinued love ofGod for the chosenpeopleofIsrael.R. Sungenis: Notice again how theCommission injects the phrase chosenpeople, as if Jews of today have the samespiritualstatusofanAbraham,aMoses,oraDavid. They do not. The Jews of today areadherentstoanantibiblicaltheologyoftheirown making that has little to do with thechosen people of the Old Testament. Theonly chosen people among the Jews todayare those Jews who have accepted JesusChrist as the divine savior and have becomemembersoftheChurchthroughbaptism.As forwhetherGodhas a continued love forthe Jews, Scripture is clear in John 3:16 that

God so loved theworld thathegavehisonlybegotten Son thatwhosoever believes in himshall not perish but shall have eternal life.Further,asSt.PaulsaysinRom.11:28,butasregardselection theyarebeloved for the sakeof their forefathers. That is, due to Godspromise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, GodintendsonelectingsomeJewstosalvation(asPaulexpressesearlier inRomans11:57,14and23),andthustheloveofGoduponthemis manifested. The $64,000 question,however, is who of the Jews will bend thekneeandacceptthesaviorofAbraham,Isaacand Jacob, which is none other than JesusChrist?The Commission: A replacement orsupersessiontheologywhichsetsagainstoneanothertwoseparateentities,aChurchoftheGentiles and the rejected Synagogue whoseplace it takes, is deprived of its foundations.FromanoriginallycloserelationshipbetweenJudaismandChristianitya longtermstateoftension had developed, which has beengradually transformed after the SecondVatican Council into a constructive dialoguerelationship.R. Sungenis: In reality, the Second VaticanCouncildidnothingtomitigatethelongtermstate of tension between Christianity andJudaism. How could it? The core problem,JesusChrist,stillremainedanditwasntgoingtodisappearbymerehandwaving.Rather,itwas the liberals within the Church whohijacked the Council and made it appear tosay things that it never said. As theCommission itself admits in paragraph 39:Because it was such a theologicalbreakthrough, the Conciliar text is notinfrequently overinterpreted, and things areread into itwhich itdoesnot in factcontain.This is precisely what happened, and theCommission is fulfilling its own prophecy.The only thing that changed is that there isnowanappearanceofchange,anditwasfromthis illusion of change that a socalleddialogue started. But after 50 years oftalking, the stark reality is this: the dialoguehas produced little more than doctrinal

20

compromisesfromtheCatholicside(e.g., theJews have their own covenant and do notneedtohavetheChristianGospelpreachedtothem). But the side where major changesneedtobemadetheJewishsideiswherenochangeshavebeenmade.We also need to point out that the onlytension the Commission has succeeded increatingistheonebetweenitselfandtwentycenturiesofCatholicteachingabouttheJews;from which it is apparently wishing toextracate itself. Essentially, what theCommission is saying is that all the ChurchFathers, all the medievals, all the saints, allthe popes, all the doctors and all thetheologianswho insisted on separating fromJews who refused to accept Christ, but whocontinuedtopreachtheGospeltotheJewsinhopesofsavingthem,wereallwrong,anditisonly those liberals (theveryonesknown fortheir heterodoxy in many other theologicalareas) who appeared during and after theSecond Vatican Council that have seen thetruth.Lets be clear about this. In order to placatethe Jews, the Commission has sacrificedtwenty centuries of its own patrimony,somehow believing that the Church ofyesteryear didnt see things clearly andwas,indeed, antisemitic. This, of course, istotallyabsurd.Therealityis,theCommissionrepresents the successive stages of apostasyoccurringwithinthemodernCatholicChurchtoday, an apostasy long prophesied by thevery Fathers, medievals, popes, saints,doctorsandtheologiansthattheCommissioncastigatesfortheirteachingontheJews.TheCommission:18.Therehaveoftenbeenattempts to identify this replacement theoryintheEpistletotheHebrews.R. Sungenis: That is because the epistle tothe Hebrews has some of the strongest andcleareststatementsinScriptureregardingthefact that the Old Covenant has beensuperseded by the New Covenant, which is

the supersessionof theOldCovenant.Letsreviewtheseversesindetail:Hebrews 7:18: On the one hand, aformer commandment is annulledbecause of its weakness anduselessnessHebrews10:9:Thenhesays, Behold,I come todoyourwill.He takes awaythe first [covenant] to establish thesecond[covenant]Hebrews 8:7: For if there had beennothingwrongwiththatfirstcovenant,no place would have been sought foranother

These clear statements in Hebrews arebackedupby other clear statements in bothScriptureandTradition:2 Corinthians 3:14: For to this daywhen they [the Jews] read the OldCovenant, that same veil remainsunlifted,becauseonlythroughChristisittakenaway;Colossians2:14: Havingcanceled thewrittencode,withitsdecrees,thatwasagainstusandstoodopposedtous;Hetookitawaynailingittothecross;Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para.29: the New Testament took theplace of the Old Law which had beenabolishedbut on the gibbet of HisdeathJesusmadevoidtheLawwithitsdecreesfastenedthehandwritingoftheOldTestamenttotheCross.Catechism of the Council of Trent:the people, aware of the abrogationoftheMosaicLawCouncil of Florence: that the matterpertaining to the law of the OldTestament,oftheMosaiclawalthoughtheyweresuitedtothedivineworship

21

at that time, after our Lords cominghadbeensignifiedbythem,ceased,andthe sacraments of the New TestamentbeganCouncil of Trent: but not even theJews by the very letter of the law ofMoses were able to be liberated or torisetherefromCardinal Ratzinger: Thus the Sinai[Mosaic] Covenant is indeedsuperseded (Many Religions OneCovenant,p.70).St. John Chrysostom: Yet surelyPauls object everywhere is to annulthisLaw.Andwithmuchreason;foritwasthroughafearandahorrorofthisthat the Jews obstinately opposedgrace(HomilyonRomans,6:12);Andso while no one annuls a manscovenant, the covenant of God afterfour hundred and thirty years isannulled; for if not that covenant butanother instead of it bestows what ispromised, then is it set aside,which ismost unreasonable (Homily onGalatians,Ch3);St.Augustine: Insteadof the graceofthe law which has passed away, wehave received the grace of the gospelwhich is abiding; and instead of theshadows and types of the olddispensation, the truth has come byJesus Christ. Jeremiah also prophesiedthus in Gods name: Behold, the dayscome,says theLord, that Iwillmakeanewcovenantwith thehouseof Israel,andwiththehouseof Judah...Observewhat theprophet says,not toGentiles,who had not been partakers in anyformer covenant, but to the Jewishnation.Hewhohasgiventhemthelawby Moses, promises in place of it theNew Covenant of the gospel, that theymight no longer live in the oldness of

the letter, but in the newness of thespirit(Letters,74,4);JustinMartyr:Now,lawplacedagainstlawhasabrogatedthatwhichisbeforeit,andacovenantwhichcomesafterinlike manner has put an end to theprevious one; and an eternal and finallawnamely,Christhasbeengiventous, and the covenant istrustworthyHave you not readbyJeremiah, concerning this same newcovenant, He thus speaks: Behold, thedays come, says the Lord, that I willmakeanewcovenantwiththehouseofIsrael and with the house of Judah(DialoguewithTrypho,Ch11).

The Commission: This [Hebrew] Epistle,however, is not directed to the Jews butrathertotheChristiansofJewishbackgroundwho have become weary and uncertain. Itspurpose is to strengthen their faith and toencourage them to persevere, by pointing toChrist Jesus as the true and ultimate highpriest,themediatorofthenewcovenant.R. Sungenis: It makes little difference towhom the Epistle is directed. The Hebrewwriter simply makes indicative and factualstatements regarding the status of the OldCovenant, namely, that it has beensuperseded by theNewCovenant. These aretimelessstatementsand independentofwhothe specific hearers might be. Instead ofrecognizingthisfacttheCommissionistryingtomaketheabsurdargumentthatsincenonChristianJewsarenotawareoforwouldnotaccept the Hebrew writers arguments, thismakesthemimmunefromit.ThisonlyshowshowdesperatetheCommissionistoproveitspoint. On the one hand, the Commissionadmits it is forced to recognize that theHebrewwriter is saying theOldCovenant issuperseded by the New, for to deny theobvious would be ample evidence that theCommission is totally inept at exegetingScripture. On the other hand, if theCommission wants to appear logically

22

consistent to its audience, it must somehowextricate itself from the lynchpin of thetheological antagonism it wishes toalleviate, namely, that caused bysupersessionism. The solution, as we notedabove,istopositthatJudaismisnotboundbythefactsthattheHebrewwriterbringstothetable because the Hebrew writer was notwritingtounbelievingJews,onlytoChristianJews.But thiswouldbe likearguing that theTen Commandments are only written forbelievers in God and that unbelievers areimmunefromitsdictatesandfreeoftheguiltand punishment that accompanies transgressionofthem.The Commission: This context is necessarytounderstand theEpistlescontrastbetweenthefirstpurelyearthlycovenantandasecondbetter (cf. Heb 8:7) and new covenant (cf.9:15,12:24).The firstcovenant isdefinedasoutdated, in decline and doomed toobsolescence (cf. 8:13), while the secondcovenantisdefinedaseverlasting(cf.13:20).To establish the foundations of this contrastthe Epistle refers to the promise of a newcovenantintheBookoftheProphetJeremiah31:3134(cf.Heb8:812).Thisdemonstratesthat the Epistle to the Hebrews has nointention of proving the promises of theOldCovenant to be false, but on the contrarytreatsthemasvalid.R.Sungenis:Of course,hewould treat themas valid, not false. Why would the HebrewwriteraccusetheOldCovenantofbeingfalse?Thatkindofargumentationwouldunderminehis whole thesis, which is that the OldCovenant was true and valid but now hasreached its point of fulfillment and is to bereplaced by a new and better covenant, theNewCovenantinChrist.The Commission: The reference to the OldTestament promises is intended to helpChristians to be sure of their salvation inChrist.At issueintheEpistletotheHebrewsis not the contrast of the Old and NewCovenantsasweunderstandthemtoday,nor

a contrast between the church and Judaism.Rather, the contrast is between the eternalheavenly priesthood of Christ and thetransitory earthly priesthood. Thefundamental issue in the Epistle to theHebrews in the new situation is aChristological interpretation of the NewCovenant.R. Sungenis: The Commission is attemptingtomake the book of Hebrews into only onemain issue so that it can then claim that thesupporting or peripheral issues can beminimized or are not what they seem. It isclever, but it is wrong. Granted, one of themajor themes of Hebrews concerns theeternalpriesthoodofChristasopposedtothetransitory priesthood on earth, but the factremains that theeternalpriesthoodofChristcomes under the category of the NewCovenant and the transitory priesthood onearth comes under the category of the OldCovenant. Since the earthly transitorypriesthood no longer exists, then obviouslythe Old Covenant no longer exists. In otherwords, just as the earthly transitorypriesthood has been superseded by theeternal heavenly priesthoodof Christ, so theOld Covenant has been superseded by theNewCovenant.ThelogicisclearandthereisnoescapefortheCommission.The Commission: For exactly thisreason,Nostra aetate(No. 4) did not referto the Epistle to the Hebrews, but rather toSaint Pauls reflections in his letter to theRomans911.R. Sungenis: In reality, the CommissioncannotguesswhyNostraaetatedidnotreferto the Epistle to the Hebrews. Perhaps thedrafters of Nostra aetate thought it was soobvious that the New Covenant hassupersededtheOldthatitwasntnecessarytomention. Regardless, the Commission istryingtowintheargumentbyimplyingthereis a disagreement between what is said inHebrews in contrast to what is said inRomans.TheimplicationisthatRomanssays

23

the Covenant with the Jews is NOTsupersededwhereasHebrewssaysitis(eveniftheCommissionwantstokeepitspreviousargument that Hebrews is only addressingJewishChristians,nottheJewsatlarge).ThisispreciselywhytheCommissionhastitleditsdocument by quoting from Romans 11:29,namely,TheGiftsandtheCallingofGodareIrrevocable (Rom 11:29), which, to theCommission, apparently means that theJewish Old Covenant is irrevocable. In otherwords, the Commission has chosen to settlethequestionofsupersessionismbymakingitappearthatRomanstrumpHebrewsandthatNostra aetate sided with Romans! I dontthink Ive ever seen a more crassmanipulation of both Scripture and conciliardocuments in allmy years. Not only has theCommission sacrificed its historicalpatrimony to placate modern Jewry, it hasnowmadeamockeryof Scriptureby settingonebookagainstanother.AnAnalysisofRomans11:29

First,letstakeacloselookatRomans11:29.ThefirstthingwenoticeisthatitdoesnotsaytheOldCovenant is irrevocable. If it did, itwould certainly contradict Hebrews 7:18;8:713 and 10:9. It says only that the giftsandcallingareirrevocable.ItdoessofirstofallbecausePaulisreaffirmingGodsintegrity.IfGodsaysheisgoingtogiveagiftormakeacall,hedoesnotgobackonhisword.Hekeeps his promises. TheHebrewwriter sayssomethingsimilarinHeb.6:1318:

13For when God made a promise toAbraham, since he had no one greaterby whom to swear, he swore byhimself, 14saying, Surely I will blessyou and multiply you. 15And thusAbraham, having patiently endured,obtained the promise. 16Men indeedswear by a greater than themselves,andinalltheirdisputesanoathisfinalfor confirmation. 17So when Goddesired to show more convincingly tothe heirs of the promise the

unchangeablecharacterofhispurpose,he interposed with an oath, 18so thatthrough two unchangeable things, inwhich it is impossible that God shouldprovefalse,wewhohavefledforrefugemight have strong encouragement toseizethehopesetbeforeus.

The only remaining question regards whatgifts and call St. Paul is referring to. Thatquestion can only be answered by thecontext,andthecontextstartsseveralversesearlier when the question of whether thepeopleofIsraelarestillpermittedtohavetheGospel of JesusChrist preached to themandthereby become saved. The answer given bySt. Paul is emphatically Yes! As such, thegift that is irrevocable for the Jews is thegiftof salvation in JesusChrist.Likewise, thecall that is irrevocable is the invitationtothe Jews to receive Jesus Christ as theirSavior.Whyaretheyirrevocable?becauseGod promised them to Israels forefathers,Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This is preciselywhy Paul says in verse 27: but as regardselectiontheyarebelovedforthesakeoftheirforefathers.Inotherwords,becauseofGodspromise to Abraham, the Jews of today canstill become part of the elect. When onecomes to Christ, he has been elected. Untilthe end of time the Jews will still have thegift and call to become elected, since Godwouldnevergobackonthepromisehemadetotheirforefathers.But this just begs the question: why wouldsomeoneraise the issueofwhether the JewsshouldstillhavetheGospelpreachedtothemsothattheycanbecomesaved?ThereasonisgiveninRomanschapters9and10.ThereSt.Paul speaks about how God rejected thenationof Israelbecauseof its continual sins.He judged them as a nation several times,dispersing the 10 northern tribes in 722 BCand sending the two southern tribes intoBablyoniancaptivity in587BC.Althoughthesouthern tribes returned in 517 BC, theybecomesinfulagainandwerefinallyrejectedatthecrossin33ADanddestroyedin70ADand 136 AD. In Acts 23, St. Peter lays the

24

blameforthedeathofChristatthefeetoftheJews. Although some repent, the JewishleadersdecidetoantagonizetheChurchand,after being told again of their sinful past byStephen, they make him the Churchs firstmartyr (Acts 7). They continue to persecutethe Church throughout the book of Acts. Atthe end of Acts, St. Paul concludes thefollowingabouttheJews:

25TheHolySpiritwasrightinsayingtoyour fathers through Isaiah theprophet: 26Go to this people, and say,You shall indeed hear but neverunderstand, and you shall indeed seebut never perceive. 27For this peopleshearthasgrowndull,andtheirearsareheavy of hearing, and their eyes theyhave closed; lest they should perceivewith their eyes, and hear with theirears, and understand with their heart,and turn forme to heal them. 28Let itbe known to you then that thissalvation of God has been sent to theGentiles;theywilllisten.

So, if such ominous prophecies are madeabouttheJewsandthusPauldecidestoturnaway from them and preach to the Gentiles,the question would naturally arise: can theJews still be saved? As noted, Paul answersthisquestionwithanexuberantYes,butitisaqualifiedYes.TheyeshegivesisnotedinRomans 11:1 when he himself raised thequestion of whether the Jew can still besaved.Hesays:

1I ask, then, has God rejected hispeople? By no means! I myself am anIsraelite, a descendant of Abraham, amemberof the tribeofBenjamin. 2Godhas not rejected his people whom heforeknew. Do you not know what thescripture saysof Elijah, howhepleadswith God against Israel? 3Lord, theyhave killed thy prophets, they havedemolished thy altars, and I alone amleft,andtheyseekmylife.4ButwhatisGods reply to him? I have kept for

myself seven thousandmenwho havenotbowedthekneetoBaal.5Sotooatthe present time there is a remnant,chosenbygrace.

So,Paulsanswer to thequestionofwhetherthe Jew can still be saved in spite of Godspunishment against national Israel and therevokingof itsOldCovenant isa Yes,butaYes that refers only to a remnant of Jewscomingoutofthenation,notthenationitself.Thenationhasbeenrejectedanditscovenantrevoked.Itsdemisewillcomein70ADwhenthe Romans destroy Jerusalem. But the Jewscoming out of the nation and accepting theNew Covenant in Jesus Christ will be saved,just as Paul himself was saved by acceptingJesus Christ. In fact, Paul says he is livingproof that God has not rejected his people,since Paul was saved by personally meetingJesusChristontheroadtoDamascus.ThelargemajorityofJewswhodonotacceptChristwill fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah, justasPaulpredictedinActs28:2528,andwhichhereiteratesinRomans11:710:

7Whatthen?Israelfailedtoobtainwhatitsought.Theelectobtainedit,buttherest were hardened, 8as it is written,Godgavethemaspiritofstupor,eyesthatshouldnotseeandearsthatshouldnothear, down to this veryday. 9AndDavid says, Let their table become asnare and a trap, a pitfall and aretributionforthem;10lettheireyesbedarkened so that they cannot see, andbendtheirbacksforever.

Hence, in regard to this ominous prophecyabout the Jews, the question needs to beraisedagain:cantheJewsstillbesaved?Andifso,howwillthishappen?Paulanswersthisquestioninverses1114:

11So Iask,have theystumbledsoas tofall? By no means! But through theirtrespass salvation has come to theGentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.

25

12Nowiftheirtrespassmeansrichesforthe world, and if their failure meansrichesfortheGentiles,howmuchmorewill their full inclusionmean! 13Now IamspeakingtoyouGentiles. InasmuchthenasIamanapostletotheGentiles,Imagnifymyministry14inordertomakemy fellow Jews jealous, and thus savesomeofthem.

NoticethatPaulsaysmuchthesameashedidin verses 110. There he said that althoughthe larger part of Israel would continue intheir blindness, therewill be a remnant thatbecomessaved.Similarly,inverses1114,hesays that some of themwill become savedand thus join the Gentiles. In this way, Godfulfills his irrevocable gifts and call to theJews that He promised to Abraham. Eventhoughit isonlyaremnantthatwillrespondtothegiftsandcall,thefactisthatGodhasnot taken away the possibility that ANY Jewcan still be saved. Those who refuse tobecomesaveddosooftheirownfreewill.Inotherwords,Goddoesnottakethefirststepandblind the Jewso that it is impossible forhim to repent and turn toChrist.Ofhisownfreewill the Jewdecides tohardenhisheartandthenGodconfirmsthathardness.9The importanceof the freewillof the JewtodecideforChristisrestatedinverses2223:

22Note then the kindness and theseverity of God: severity toward thosewhohave fallen,butGodskindness toyou, provided you continue in hiskindness;otherwiseyoutoowillbecutoff.23Andeventheothers,iftheydonotpersistintheirunbelief,willbegraftedin,forGodhasthepowertografttheminagain.

Notice thatPaul saysof the Jews, if theydonot persist in their unbelief, will be graftedin.Hence,whether the Jewswill respond to 9 See Exodus 9:34-10:1 for an explanation of this dynamic between Gods hardening and mans hardening.

thegiftsandcallofGod isup to the Jew. Ifherepentsandaccepts JesusChrist,Godwillgrafthimbackintotheolivetree,whicholivetreeisChrist.Now that we know that a remnant orsome of the Jews will turn to Christ andbecomesaved like theGentiles, St.Paul thengoes on to show in verses 2627 how, inregards to the covenant, this salvationwillbeaccomplishedbyChrist.

26andsoallIsraelwillbesaved;asit iswritten, TheDelivererwill come fromZion, he will banish ungodliness fromJacob;27andthiswillbemycovenantwiththemwhenItakeawaytheirsins.

Notice that thesavingof Israel is fulfillingatleasttwopropheciesfromtheOldTestament.One is from Isaiah 59:2021 concerning theDeliverer who will banish ungodliness,andthesecondisfromIsaiah27:9concerninga covenant with them to take away theirsins.Aswecansee, themain theme is sinand itsreparation.ThereisonlyoneDelivererwhowill banish ungodliness from Jacob and dosobymakingacovenantwiththemtotakeawaytheirsins.ItisChristalone.Thereisnoothersavior.10ThecovenantthatHebringsis the New Covenant as is stated clearly inHebrews 8:1012, and prophesied numeroustimesintheOldTestament:

10This is the covenant that Iwillmakewith the house of Israel after thosedays, says theLord: Iwillputmy lawsinto their minds, and write them ontheirhearts,andIwillbetheirGod,andthey shall be my people. 11And theyshall not teach everyone his fellow oreveryonehisbrother,saying,Knowthe

10 Note here that the Deliverer does not refer to some future prophet that allegedly comes back at or near the Second Coming of Christ to convert the Jews at large, as was speculated by some patristic or medieval interpreters.

26

Lord, for all shall know me, from theleastofthemtothegreatest.12ForIwillbemercifultowardtheiriniquities,andIwillremembertheirsinsnomore.

MostimportantforthisdiscussioniswhattheHebrewwritersaysnextinverse13:

13In speaking of a new covenant hetreatsthefirstasobsolete.Andwhatisbecoming obsolete and growing old isreadytovanishaway.

So, inorder tobringthenewcovenant, theoldcovenanthadtoberevoked(i.e.,vanishaway)because itwas obsolete.Hence, thecovenantwith them that takes away theirsins inRomans 11:27 can only be the newcovenant, since it is the only covenant thatcan finally and eternally remit sins. The oldcovenant could only remit sins temporarily.Once the new covenant came and providedpermanentforgiveness,therewasnoneedfortheoldstemporaryforgiveness.We can now see that Romans 11:29sirrevocable gifts and callingofGod isnoneotherthantheNewCovenant in JesusChrist.This is the same covenant thatwas given toAbraham,IsaacandJacobtheforefathersofIsraelandthecovenantbywhichtheyalso,as the remnant, became saved (Romans 4:122;Galatians3:929;Luke1:6879).It was irrevocable because, as we sawearlierfromHebrews6:1318,Godsworebyan oath to Abraham to provide salvation tothose Jews who followed in the faith andworksofAbraham.Butwealso findthatthisNewCovenantwasnot exclusively for the Jews. In fact, it wasoriginally made for the Gentiles (Genesis12:13). The Jews were added twentyfiveyears later (seeGenesis17). St. Paul teachesthisinGalatians3:68:

6Thus Abraham believed God, and itwasreckonedtohimasrighteousness.

7Soyou see that it ismenof faithwhoare the sons of Abraham. 8And thescripture, foreseeing that God wouldjustify the Gentiles by faith, preachedthe gospel beforehand to Abraham,saying, In you shall all the nations beblessed.11

So, we can conclude that the Gentiles whobelieveinChrist(whichPaulsaysinRomans11:25 are the full number of the Gentiles)and the remnant or some of Israel whobelieveinChrist(whichPaulsaysinRomans11:26areallIsrael),willtogether,undertheNewCovenantmadeforbothJewandGentile,receivetheirsalvationbecauseoftheworkofthe Deliverer who died on the cross fortheirsins.But this means, of course, that theCommissions understanding of Romans11:29 as referring only to the Jews andonlytotheJewisholdcovenantthatitassumeshasnever been revoked, is totally incorrect. TheirrevocablegiftsandcallofGod is theNewCovenant in JesusChrist thatwas first giventotheirforefatherAbrahamandwhich,atthedeathof Christ, formally replaced the Jewishold covenant; and the New Covenant is forboth Jew and Gentile who wish to receivesalvation. It alsomeans that the Jewsdonothaveaseparateandexclusivecovenant fromGod;italsomeansthattheJewsarenolongerthe chosen people; it also means th