Pope Benedict XVI and Jewish Theologian Jacob Neusner: Eternal Israel vs. New Israel

[ChristianVet]

I found this light review of Pope Benedict’s new book, Jesus of Nazareth interesting.

Cardinal Martino explained that there was an interesting dialogue between Pope Benedict and Jewish theologian Jacob Neusner.

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=80973

I’ve always been a little confused as to the difference between the “Eternal Israel” and the “New Israel”.

Are there any theologians who could walk us through this more deeply.

Thank you.

 

[Genesis315]

The Second Vatican Council dealt with this greatly in Lumen Gentium. It is why the Fathers chose the phrase “People of God” to refer to the Catholic Church.

The Israel that is heir to Abraham, is the Israel of faith. The Old Testament depicts Israel is its initial manifestation. The coming of Christ does not destroy this Israel, but fulfills it. In other words, there is a unity between the People of God of the Old Testament, and the People of God after Christ has come. It is essentially the same entity, “the eternal Israel.” But, the limited understanding of OT Israel and the marks that defined it (blood and law) are fulfilled in faith and grace. Following the ways of “old Israel” as Jews do who did not accept Christ, no longer makes one a part of the People of God, which has been fulfilled in Christ. One must be a member of the “new Israel,” that is, the Church of Christ.

I hope that helps.

 

[ChristianVet]

The Second Vatican Council dealt with this greatly in Lumen Gentium. It is why the Fathers chose the phrase “People of God” to refer to the Catholic Church.

The Israel that is heir to Abraham, is the Israel of faith. The Old Testament depicts Israel is its initial manifestation. The coming of Christ does not destroy this Israel, but fulfills it. In other words, there is a unity between the People of God of the Old Testament, and the People of God after Christ has come. It is essentially the same entity, “the eternal Israel.” But, the limited understanding of OT Israel and the marks that defined it (blood and law) are fulfilled in faith and grace. Following the ways of “old Israel” as Jews do who did not accept Christ, no longer makes one a part of the People of God, which has been fulfilled in Christ. One must be a member of the “new Israel,” that is, the Church of Christ.

I hope that helps.

Thank you. Makes it a whole lot clearer for me.

I’ve been confused as of late because there are evangelists on TV who are treating the State of Israel and the old Jewish Law, as if it were still in effect (spiritually) – at least that’s the way he comes across.

Now I realize that while it may be all right for the physical State of Israel to exist – spiritually the New Israel is the Christian Faith.

Do I have that right?

 

[Genesis315]

Thank you. Makes it a whole lot clearer for me.

I’ve been confused as of late because there are evangelists on TV who are treating the State of Israel and the old Jewish Law, as if it were still in effect (spiritually) – at least that’s the way he comes across.

Now I realize that while it may be all right for the physical State of Israel to exist – spiritually the New Israel is the Christian Faith.

Do I have that right?

Yes Certain groups of evangelicals (the one’s who often have televangelists) hold to a doctrine that the Church of Christ and Israel are two completely different things. For them, the Jewish people, even if they do not accept their own Messiah, retain their status as Israel. And the state of Israel embodies that. As Catholics, the state of Israel is no different than any other nation-state. Someone once told me that naming that state Israel was one of the most brilliant political moves around, because it plays greatly into people’s religious sentimentalities. I think Jews just wanted to honor their heritage, but I can still see why someone might think otherwise.

Now, let me point out, this does not take away from the status of the Jewish people (by blood) as God’s chosen people. The fulfillment of the Old Covenant in the New was initially for them, and then expanded to include Gentiles as well. God still calls them to His new covenant, and certain prophecies suggest they will come en mass eventually. But just like with the Old Covenant, God is faithful to His part, but His people need to be faithful to theirs or they are cast out (the OT is filled with example after example of this). Faithful to the fulfilled Covenant entails faithfulness to Christ, the Messiah–for Jews and Gentiles alike.

 

[NDIrish]

Cardinal Martino explained that there was an interesting dialogue between Pope Benedict and Jewish theologian Jacob Neusner.

I’m reading the Holy Father’s book now, and his dialogue with Jacob Neusner really is very interesting! It’s such a great book…

 

[NDIrish]

Now, let me point out, this does not take away from the status of the Jewish people (by blood) as God’s chosen people. The fulfillment of the Old Covenant in the New was initially for them, and then expanded to include Gentiles as well. God still calls them to His new covenant, and certain prophecies suggest they will come en mass eventually. But just like with the Old Covenant, God is faithful to His part, but His people need to be faithful to theirs or they are cast out (the OT is filled with example after example of this). Faithful to the fulfilled Covenant entails faithfulness to Christ, the Messiah–for Jews and Gentiles alike.

I was listening to a podcast in which this topic was discussed. The presenter made a point to say that the Old Covenant is still valid, but that since the Levitical priesthood no longer exists, only the covenant curses and be dispensed, and not the covenant blessings.

 

[ChristianVet]

Since Christ did not abolish Jewish Law, but came to Fulfill it, what purpose does it serve to continue with such practices?

Is God the Father offended that it still exists? Or is He patiently waiting for them to recognize Christ as the fulfillment of the Law?

One more question, what about Televangelists who call the New Israel theology - “replacement” theology? Are there any new testament scriptures that would point to their error on this?

 

[Genesis315]

Replacement theology implies God breaks His promises. Catholic theology implies that He keeps and fulfills His promises in an even greater way than the people of God had imagined.

Romans Chapters 9 through 11 is a great place to understand this topic concerning the relationship between Jews, Gentiles, and Israel (which is often symbolized by a tree). Notice, St. Paul discusses the root remaining, but some natural branches are broken off while “wild branches” (Gentiles) are grafted in. But he also enforces the idea that if God is so gracious to graft in wild branches, how much more willing will He be to graft in those natural branches. Notice how he also mentions that not all Israelites by flesh are members of Israel.

 

[Genesis315]

Since Christ did not abolish Jewish Law, but came to Fulfill it, what purpose does it serve to continue with such practices?

Is God the Father offended that it still exists? Or is He patiently waiting for them to recognize Christ as the fulfillment of the Law?

God loves every person He creates–and He does wait patiently for them to return, like the father of the prodigal son.

Whether the law serves a purpose, that I don’t know. St. Paul writes that when we die and rise in Baptism, we are freed from the law, just like death breaks the marriage bond. Freedom from the law, then implies being born again outside of it. For those Jews that are born into it, as NDIrish pointed out, they may still be subject to its condemnation; whereas salvations comes only through Christ.

Even if a Jewish person is saved, it will not be because of the law, which leads to death, but rather because they had at least an implicit supernatural faith in Jesus (assuming they weren’t cuplable for not knowing Christ.)

 

[ChristianVet]

Thanks again, Genesis315.

 

[Lev23]

Yes As Catholics, the state of Israel is no different than any other nation-state. Someone once told me that naming that state Israel was one of the most brilliant political moves around, because it plays greatly into people’s religious sentimentalities. I think Jews just wanted to honor their heritage, but I can still see why someone might think otherwise.

Really?!

In Israel, they speak basically the same hebrew language today the prophets spoke.

They hold the same passover today God told them to celebrate as an everlasting memorial.

Their scriptures tell of a regathering back into the land, never again to be removed, that would be called prophecy.

When God announces the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31, he states he will make it with the Israel and the House of Judah. Later in Jer31, God says Israel will never stop being a nation before his site.

St.Paul states there is a remnant of Israel in the church, right now there is a remnant saved by grace and not works. St.Paul in Romans 11 said all Israel will be saved when Jesus comes from Zion. From Acts 1 and Zech14 as well as other scriptures, Jesus’ 2nd coming will be back on the Mt. of Olives, in Jerusalem.

So obviously there will be an Israel.

 

[ChristianVet]

Lev32, very few people would question the fact that there will always be a state of Israel. Nor would anyone on this forum question the religious devotion of Jews.

However, my original question had to do with a theological point that Jesus Christ made while here on earth.

Since Pope Benedict XVI has written such a fine encyclical on Jesus of Nasareth and he has engaged in a theological discussion with Rabbi Nuesner, I was seeking clarity on that theological point.

Clearly, Jews and Christians will have different viewpoints theologically regarding Jesus and His prophesies. I am just thankful that we live in a country where these issues can be discussed peacefully, without bloodshed.

Truly, we all have come a long way. Thank you for commenting.

 

[richwmiller]

Since Pope Benedict XVI has written such a fine encyclical on Jesus of Nasareth and he has engaged in a theological discussion with Rabbi Nuesner, I was seeking clarity on that theological point.

Sorry not an encyclical but a book. A book you are free to agree with or not.
So far I haven’t heard any negatives on the book.
I have read Neusner’s book but not the pope’s --yet.