Dear Fr. Harrison,
Thank you for bringing your article “
The Catholic Liturgy and Supersessionism” to our attention, in response to our recent newsletter
(November 2010) which commented on the recent Synod of Bishops for the
Middle East.
Despite a busy schedule, I have decided that your well-written
article is worthy of a serious response, because it explains in an
articulate way a theological position that we encounter
frequently. This position is one that is well-motivated and
makes an important point, yet it is also one which I believe has some
very
serious weaknesses and implications that I’m afraid might do more damage than
good to
the mission of the Church.
First, a summary of your article as I understand it:
- Although you do not state it in this way, it seems to me that
the main objective of your article is really to refute dual-covenant
theology,
namely the idea that Jews could be saved by faithfully observing the
Mosaic Law, while Christians are saved by the New Covenant instituted
by Christ and perpetuated in the Church. We at Catholics for Israel
fully agree with you in this regard. Dual-covenant
theology contradicts the faith of the Church. As you demonstrate quite
well from the Catholic liturgical texts, the Church's faith clearly
expresses that Jews are indeed invited to "enter into the New Covenant
by means of baptism and faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah."
- However, instead of building your argument upon a
refutation of
dual-covenant theology, you present it rather as an
affirmation of
supersessionism,
which you define as the belief that "the covenant between God and the
People of Israel, established through the mediation of Moses at Mount
Sinai, has been replaced
or superseded by the ‘New Covenant’ of Jesus
Christ. This implies that the Mosaic covenant, with its ritual and
dietary requirements, Sabbath observance, etc., is no longer valid for the Jewish
people." In other words, you appear to spend more time and
energy denying the
ongoing validity of the Mosaic covenant rather than affirming the
message of salvation of the New Covenant. This, as I will
argue below, is not only an unfortunate emphasis, but also a disastrous
one.
- Throughout your article, you affirm supersessionism by
emphasizing an exaggerated dichotomy between Mosaic Covenant and New
Covenant, using statements like the following:
- Reception of baptism and living according to the faith,
worship and
discipline of the New Covenant is allegedly "incompatible with
the
continuing observance of the Mosaic covenant."
- The conversion of Jews who come to believe in Christ
would allegedly involve "replacing
observance of the Mosaic covenant by the reception of baptism and
participation in the Christian New Covenant."
- Baptism has "replaced"
circumcision, and the first day of the week has "replaced" the
seventh.
- "The subsidiary and specific covenant of Sinai under
Moses has now been replaced
or superseded
definitively by the specifically Christian covenant."
Before I try to respond to your position, I invite you to read
a new "parable" that I
just wrote. It was inspired by your article and by other
expressions of supersessionism that I continually encounter.
It
is called
The
Father and the Two Sons: A New Parable on Replacement Theology
Now my response. I would argue that your methodology
is not only
unnecessary but also most regrettable and damaging for the following
reasons:
- Your supersessionist position goes way beyond the
position of Jesus and the New
Testament authors, who are much more positive towards the Mosaic
Covenant than you are. True, the NT constantly reaffirms the
superiority of the New over the Old; some passages seem to support the
view that the time of the Mosaic Covenant has come to an end (e.g. the
Epistle to the Hebrews); and Paul is adamant that observing the
commandments of the Torah is not sufficient to be saved, but that
faith in Christ is necessary for salvation (esp. Gal and Rom). However:
- Jesus himself said that He did not come to abolish
but rather to fulfill the Torah (Mat 5:17)
- At the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) the fact that the
apostles decided that Gentile Christians are not obligated to be circumcised and keep the Torah presupposes
that these customs were still practiced by the
early Jewish-Christian community. Had this not been so, there would
never had been the very debate about what to do with Gentiles who enter
the Church.
- To illustrate this point, Paul has Timothy circumcised
in the very next chapter (Acts 16:30).
- In Acts 21:20, the believers in Jerusalem are overjoyed
that "many myriads of Jews" have believed, and they are "all zealous for the law"
(the Torah).
- At the same time, Paul joins himself to men who have
made a vow to prove wrong his accusers who falsely claim
that he is teaching "all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake
Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to
walk according to the customs." On the contrary, Paul is
purified with these men so that "all may know that those things of
which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly
and keep the law" (Act 21:24).
- I invite you to read more about the relationship of the
first believers with the Law in our section on Torah and Gospel.
- Second,
many important Church authorities today have a much more positive view
of the Torah and Mosaic covenant than you do. To give you only one
example, see the recent interview with Archbishop Raymond Burke, now
prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial office in the
Church. I hope you will have an open ear to hear what he says about the
legitimacy of observing Jewish customs in the light of Christ for
Jewish believers.
- Third, your position essentially advocates a
form of supersessionism that constitutes an
almost insurmountable barrier to
salvation for our Jewish friends. If supersessionism were true, it
would mean that in order to accept the Gospel, the Jews would have to
reject everything that they hold most dear. It would mean rejecting
their own culture and customs which were not only given to them by God
but also are the foundation of their very identity. This attitude, of
course, flies in the face of everything the Church teaches about
inculturation and evangelization: when missionaries evangelize new
nations, the most foolish and counter-productive thing they could do is start
uprooting the local people from their ancient customs and traditions as
they try to make them Christians. Yet this is exactly what the
supersessionist position does as it rejects any legitimacy for Jews
to have the freedom to continue observing their customs. This takes on even more disastrous proportions when one considers that
many of these customs were divinely instituted!
- Incidentally, the Code of Canon Law (23-28) affirms that local customs prevailing in a culture more than 30 years obtain force of law;
and that centenary or immemorial customs can even prevail against some
canonical laws. "Unless it makes express mention of them, a law does
not revoke centenary or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law
revoke particular customs" (CIC 28). How much more for the immemorial customs of Israel, instituted by God Himself!
- In short, if your position begins out of a good
intention (affirming that Jesus Christ is indeed the way to salvation
for our Jewish brethren), it really ends up having the opposite, catastrophic effect, of namely blocking
their way to salvation.
Perhaps the foundation for this damaging position stems from a
confusion between the particular role of Israel and universal role of
the Church. I have noticed this in a statement you made in
your email. You wrote that it is a "fundamental part of our
Catholic faith"
to hold that the secondary covenant with Moses established at
Sinai has been superseded and replaced by the New Covenant. If that
were not so, we would all still be bound to Sabbath rather than Sunday
observance, to observe all the dietary and ritual prescriptions of
Leviticus, practise circumcision, etc. (emphasis added)
The problem with this statement, Fr. Harrison, is that it is simply
not true - or at least not for Gentile Catholics. We Gentiles were
never bound by Sabbath observance, dietary and ritual prescriptions and circumcision. These were
never given
to Gentiles or to Christians, but only to Israel. To the first Jewish
believers (as we see from the passages in Acts cited above) it was
clear that the New Covenant did not abolish the covenant with Israel
(including these observances), but rather universalized this covenant
and extended its universal precepts to include all the nations. From
the very beginning, Gentile Christians were not bound by the Torah
because it was not given to them. But just as the New Covenant never
intended to judaize gentiles and make them Jews, the same New Covenant
never intended to "gentilize" Jews and make the Gentiles.
True, there
is "neither Jew nor Greek" - both are equal before God as regarding
salvation. But just as the fact that there is "neither male nor female"
never abolished the particular differences, complementarity and
callings of man and woman, why should it not be the same with Jews and
Gentiles - who each retain their particular calling in the One Church
of Christ?
And so why should the invitation to baptism to Jews
and their entrance into the new, universal covenant, imply the
rejection, abrogation, or dismissal of circumcision, the sign of their
particular covenant with God (which in this case is Abrahamic, by the
way, and not Mosaic)? What makes them mutually exclusive?
Why
should the celebration of the Lord's Day and new creation imply a
rejection of the Sabbath day, divinely given to Israel, commemorating
the first creation, whose importance is ceaselessly recalled in the OT
as sign of Israel's faithfulness of God? Should the celebration of the
new creation by the universal Church on the eigth day (to which Israel
is of course invited) not
reaffirm rather than dismiss the celebration of the first creation on the seventh day for Israel?
Do you not see why your view creates an almost insurmountable stumbling block to the salvation of the Jewish people?
Does Catholicism not usually embrace an attitude of both/and rather than either/or? Why the false dichotomy between God's covenants - and why not adopt a more integrative approach?
In
summary: God gave the Torah and its ordinances as the everlasting sign
and guarantee of His covenant to Israel. It was never intended for
their salvation, but its precepts constituted the grateful and loving
response of Israel to their Creator who delivered them from Egyptian
slavery and adopted them as His first-born son. God gave the Torah to
Israel, and not to Gentiles or to the Church. The universal New
Covenant established by Jesus never abrogated the particular Mosaic
covenant given to Israel, yet it was its perfect fulfillment. Without
the Gospel, the Torah remained and still remains incomplete,
unfulfilled, for the Torah points to Jesus as the new prophet, Messiah
and Savior of Israel.
But the Gospel was not only given to
the Jews. It was intended for all men. It quickly became evident that
the New Covenant did not require Gentiles to go first through the Old - to become circumcised and become Jews as a prerequisite to be members of the Church.
At the same time, the universal covenant with the Church never required
Jews to forsake the particular covenant of the Law of Moses - as long as
it was clear that this particular covenant was not a final destination
but rather a step - a very important one - on the way to the fullness
of God's revelation and salvation revealed in Christ.
May we Gentile Christians
learn to see the ancient covenant with Israel with greater humility,
respect and appreciation, and may our own transformed attitude towards
Israel and their heritage facilitate their encounter with Grace that Moses foretold long ago but has now been suspended for all too long.
