Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

[Robert_Sungenis]

R. Sungenis: No, it is quite the contrary. It is David Palm who is looking at these pre-Mosaic passages with “Palm-colored glasses.” He has fallen into the same trap that others have fallen into.

Palm writes: We emphasized several times that the election of the people of Israel took place prior to the Mosaic Covenant and therefore is not contingent on the status of that Covenant. For example:
God’s gracious choice of Israel - predates the Mosaic Covenant and is rooted in the calling of Abraham (see Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 49:1,3; Isaiah 51:1,2; Deuteronomy 7:7). The calling was not because of Israel’s righteousness in the first place; therefore, neither does Israel’s lack of righteousness nullify the call.

R. Sungenis: The fallacy of Mr. Palm’s approach is that he doesn’t make the proper distinctions in the Abrahamic covenant. Abraham was given two covenants: a physical covenant with physical dimensions for the nation of Israel; and a spiritual covenant for the saved of both Jews and Gentiles. This is clearly demonstrated in the various types of language given in Genesis 12-31 when it speaks about the covenants with Abraham.

Mr. Palm’s lack of making the proper distinctions is precisely why he balked earlier at the passages I demonstrated from Joshua 21:43-45; 1 Kings 8:56 and Nehemiah 9:7-8 that show God has already completely fulfilled the physical land promised to Abraham in Genesis 12-22 for his physical descendants, the Jews. All Mr. Palm could say in return was that he “couldn’t find any Church teaching” to that effect. Apparently he has no qualms about giving a private interpretation of Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 49:1,3; Isaiah 51:1,2; Deuteronomy 7:7, but when it comes to Joshua 21:43-45; 1 Kings 8:56 and Nehemiah 9:7-8, all of a sudden he loses his hermeneutical abilities.

And here’s the rub. The fact that the Israel of “Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 49:1,3; Isaiah 51:1,2; Deuteronomy 7:7” was already given the land promised to Abraham and his descendants, was not, in fact, given to Abraham! This is precisely the argument of Hebrews 11:13, 16 and 39-40. But the promise was made to Abraham. So how will it be fulfilled? In the new heaven and new earth (2 Peter 3:10-13). And all those who will enjoy it with him are “the Israel of God,” composed of both saved Jews and saved Gentiles (Eph 2:14-15; Gal 6:16; Rom 9:6; 11:5-7; 26).
Interestingly enough, the very “Israel” Mr. Palm believes is “special” (without him giving the proper distinction between Israel and Israel), is the very group Jesus says will be thrown out of the kingdom since it will be given to others (Matt 8:11-12).

That Gentiles were already included in the spiritual side of Abraham’s covenant from the get-go with Genesis 12:3 (“in you all the Gentiles will be blessed”), which verse St. Paul quotes in Gal 3:8 to show that God had already made the first necessary distinction.

So, Mr. Palm is stuck again. Although he admitted that the Mosaic covenant has nothing to offer the Jews of today, he also needs to realize that the physical/ethnic side of the Abrahamic covenant has nothing to offer the Jews of today, since that dimension of the covenant was annulled or fulfilled just as the Mosaic covenant was annulled or fulfilled.

And THAT is the very reason Nehemiah can say that God fulfilled his land promises to Abraham and his seed; it is the very reason that St. Paul can make a sharp distinction between Israel and Israel in Romans 9:6; it is the very reason that the New Testament NEVER says the Jews, as Jews, have a special relationship with God, at least one that is in distinction to the Gentiles. (And Mr. Palm’s question-begging interpretation of “the election” in Romans 11:28 is no help since it is just more of his petitio principii exegesis). If anything, the Jews, as Jews, are chastised and given a poor prognosis in the New Testament (cf. Acts 13:43-48; 1 Thess 2:14-16; Romans 9:30-33; 10:16-21).
The only “specialness” the Jew has from God today is the same spiritual specialness that God gives to anyone who accepts Jesus Christ, be he Jew or Gentile.

Mr. Palm’s attempt to make the Jewish race special, above the Gentile races, and to call the Jewish race “the election” is categorically wrong. Not only that, it is heretical. It is, as I said many times, “spiritual racism.” There simply is no such teaching in Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium to support his novel thesis.

Mr. Palm’s attempt to base his novelty on the Abrahamic covenant simply shows that he doesn’t understand the Abrahamic covenant. But that is common among Dispensationalist-type hermeneutics. They love to interpret passages like Deut 7:7 without the benefit of the New Testament commentary or the patristic commentary. They want to isolate Deut 7:7. Unfortunately, isolating Scripture from the rest of Scripture is what often leads to heresy.

It is the same error that Roy Schoeman makes when he claims that all the prophecies in the Old Testament about “Israel” apply to national Israel today and not to the Church, and he reaches this absurd position by declaring that the Fathers and “two thousand years” of Church teaching was wrong! No, he is wrong, and so is Mr. Palm.

R. Sungenis

 

[Robert_Sungenis]

Palm: And yet you fixate on this word and use it to condemn others–including a Catholic bishop!–of heresy. If you’re going to publicly condemn people of “heresy”, you don’t get to use words “similar to” what the Church has said as a litmus test. And you most certainly don’t get to use words that the Church has never used, much less defined. What is so hard to understand about this?

R. Sungenis: No, the only thing hard to understand is Mr. Palm, since he has a very confused understanding of the covenants. I understand what the Church has taught, and it is not teaching Mr. Palm’s racist novelties.

Palm: This is exactly the kind of stunt you pulled with Bishop Rhoades, demanding that he sign off on several statements you personally composed before you would stop accusing him of heresy. (See the documentation here.) Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

R. Sungenis: Ridiculous? In bringing Bishop Rhoades into the discussion, Mr. Palm just trapped himself.

As we all remember, the US bishops voted in 2008 to take the heretical statement out of page 131 of the US Catechism, but this was the very paragraph Rhoades quoted when he denied me an imprimatur to my book on the Apocalypse.

Why is this important? According to Mr. Palm’s new interpretation (i.e., that the Abrahamic covenant makes the Jews “special”) he is inadvertently accusing Bishop Rhoades himself, since in Rhoades’ February 7, 2008 letter to Michael Forrest he says this about the statements on page 131 of the US Catechism:

Rhoades: I can see how the one statement that ‘the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them’ might be misunderstood. I would interpret it to mean that the Jewish people retain a special relationship to God because of the Old Covenant, but I would not interpret it to mean that the Jewish people can be saved through the Old Covenant apart from Christ.”

Now, notice that Bishop Rhoades is talking about the “covenant…through Moses” (not the Abrahamic covenant) when he says that he thinks it should be “interpreted to mean that the Jewish people retain a special relationship to God because of the Old Covenant.”

In other words, Bishop Rhoades is saying that it is because of the Mosaic covenant that the Jews should have a “special relationship” with God.

But according to Mr. Palm’s latest interpretation, it is wrong to say the Jews have a special relationship with God based on the Mosaic covenant, since he says it is based only on the Abrahamic covenant!

In addition, notice that Bishop Rhoades confirms he is speaking about the Mosaic covenant (not the Abrahamic covenant) as the basis for the “specialness” of the Jews since he goes on to say that we should not “interpret interpret it to mean that the Jewish people can be saved through the Old Covenant apart from Christ.”

Hence, Bishop Rhoades is saying that the Mosaic covenant cannot save the Jews.

All well and good, but that just proves that Bishop Rhoades is basing the alternative position (i.e., the “special relationship” of Jews with God), on the same Mosaic covenant he says was not salvific for the Jews – the very covenant Mr. Palm just told us does not give the Jews a special relationship with God, since only the Abrahamic covenant does!

I rest my case.

Robert Sungenis

 

[DavidPalm]

Bob, I’ve seen you latest postings and want to let you know that I will work on a response, but I need to attend to my day job which is a little hectic right now. Thanks for your patience.

 

[DavidPalm]

Bob, regarding your post 41, there’s a great irony that you’re accusing me here of being a Dispensationalist (I’m not and never have been, by the way) when I’m casting my entire case in terms of Catholic magisterial texts. Conversely, you’re approaching this matter more as Bob the Bible Answer Man, complete with your own private interpretations, just as you used to do in your Protestant days. I noticed that in you didn’t cite a single magisterial text to back up your assertions and interpretations. So, can you show me where the Magisterium has ever said that your interpretation of these passages is the correct one and that anything else is heresy? Because I’ve already shown you where the Church supports our position.

You wrote:

Mr. Palm’s attempt to make the Jewish race special, above the Gentile races, and to call the Jewish race “the election” is categorically wrong. Not only that, it is heretical. It is, as I said many times, “spiritual racism.” There simply is no such teaching in Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium to support his novel thesis.

We’ve never said that the “Jewish race [is] special, above the Gentile races”. In fact, we’ve said something quite different:

Just to be clear, this does not mean that Jews are more loved than non-Jews. It just means that they are unique; the have played and continue to play a unique role. A first-born (Exodus 4:22) is unique, but not necessarily more loved. (ncregister.com/daily-news/on-the-relationship-between-the-jewish-people-and-god)

I would also again strongly suggest that you read Sibling Jealousy and Racism?

Perhaps you missed all this because you said you won’t read anything that we link to.

And we have never called the Jewish race “the election”. Again, those are your own overlays and presumptions about what we “must” mean. Rather, we said what sacred Scripture and the Magisterium say, namely, that “in view of the divine choice (electionem), they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers” (Lumen Gentium 16).

But remember that in post #34 above I cited your own words admitting that Romans 11:28-29 refers to the Jewish people as a whole, the very same group being described by the Apostle Paul as both “enemies” and yet as “beloved” of God for the sake of the patriarchs. And we noted that you agreed that this amounts to a “personal and gratuitous relationship”.

We wrote:

Here, even the Fathers of the First Vatican Council interpret St. Paul to have been referring to the very same group of people as “enemies” in respect to the Gospel yet “beloved” of God for the sake of the patriarchs of Israel (see Romans 11:28-29)." Obviously they were speaking of the Jews of their own day, whom they hoped would embrace Jesus Christ as their Messiah.

To which you replied:

R. Sungenis: Certainly, but being “beloved” of God is not the same thing as being “the Chosen People” of God. The phrase “Chosen People” is a legal title with legal rights, but “beloved” is a personal and gratuitous relationship – two entirely different things.

So here, you agreed with us that Romans 11:28-29 refers to the Jewish people as a whole, the very same group being described by the Apostle Paul as both “enemies” and yet also as “beloved” of God for the sake of the patriarchs. And we agree with you that there is no legal title or right involved, but rather, a “personal and gratuitous relationship.” I ask you then: is there some other group of people that is singled out in Scripture and the Magisterium as being specially “beloved” by God “for the sake of the patriarchs of Israel”?

Remember, too, the magisterial teaching of Lumen Gentium 16 which says that the Jewish people “in view of the divine choice electionem] . . . are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers”. Is that heresy? Was it heresy for Pope John Paul II to say “it is the teaching of both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures that the Jews are [NB: present tense] beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling”? Is it heresy that the CCC states that the Jews are “the chosen people” in the present and in direct juxtaposition to Christians? Is it heresy for Nostra Aetate to say that the Jews “remain” [present tense] very dear to God on account of the patriarchs and that God does not repent of the calling (vocatio)?

You persist in throwing about charges of heresy. I challenge you again to review your own standards (Sungenis’ Own Standards of Heresy):

Now, please discharge your burden according to your own standards, since you are the one making the accusation. Show us the magisterial texts that teach that the Jewish people are not in any way specially beloved by God, are not in any way “chosen” by God, and cannot by definition play any special on-going role in salvation history. Please, no texts about salvation being offered equally to both Gentile and Jew. We agree with that. Please just answer the questions with clear magisterial texts and not your private interpretations.

Thank you.

 

[DavidPalm]

I wrote:

And yet you fixate on this word and use it to condemn others–including a Catholic bishop!–of heresy. If you’re going to publicly condemn people of “heresy”, you don’t get to use words “similar to” what the Church has said as a litmus test. And you most certainly don’t get to use words that the Church has never used, much less defined. What is so hard to understand about this?

To which you answered:

No, the only thing hard to understand is Mr. Palm, since he has a very confused understanding of the covenants. I understand what the Church has taught, and it is not teaching Mr. Palm’s racist novelties.

So, you’re not going to own up to the fact that you are publicly condemning people of heresy using words that the Church has never used? Just going to hope that nobody will notice that you completely failed to answer this central question?. Really? Well, we noticed, Bob.

But I guess I should feel honored to be cast into “Bob’s House of Heretics and Racists” along with Pope Pius IX, virtually all the fathers of Vatican I, renowned Catholic exegetes like Frs. Lagrange and Prat, Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and John Paul II.

We’ve already answered your charge of “spiritual racism”, Bob. Please read it:

sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151551

I do marvel at the amount of chutzpah it took for you to charge us with “racism” considering the fact that you’re currently promoting a video by David Duke— the former head of the Ku Klux Klan— about Jews on your website.

catholicintl.com/index.php/latest-news/647-organized-crime-mostly-jewish-hardly-italian#comment-204

Seriously, what are you thinking? Almost your entire website has degenerated into a clearing-house for (mostly Jewish) conspiracy theories. I urge you to stop spreading this garbage and get back to some good, core apologetics work. You’re capable of much better than this.

Now, regarding Bishop Rhoades, I suppose it’s understandable that you would try to divert attention away from the actual point I made. What else could you do, really? It is a fact that you demanded that Bishop Rhoades sign off on three statements that you personally made up before you would stop publicly accusing him of heresy. I suspect (hope?) you’re at least beginning to realize how completely and utterly ridiculous that stunt was – hence your diversion.

Here’s the story recounted again, in case you missed it: sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/03/by-sungenis-alone_29.html#six

You don’t seem to understand who you are and what your limits of authority are, Bob. You’re a very smart guy in some respects, but you seem to forget that you’re a simple layman with no more authority than any other layman. You don’t even have any degrees in Catholic theology or any other Catholic discipline, for that matter. And you don’t even seem to think your own publicly stated standards apply to yourself because you violate them at will against laymen and even a Catholic bishop:

Sungenis’ Own Standards of Heresy*

 

[DavidPalm]

Now, your point about Bishop Rhoades was a diversion to avoid dealing with the fact that you ridiculously demanded that he sign off on your personal doctrinal formulations. But let’s look at your new accusations a bit more closely.

As we all remember, the US bishops voted in 2008 to take the heretical statement out of page 131 of the US Catechism, but this was the very paragraph Rhoades quoted when he denied me an imprimatur to my book on the Apocalypse.

There are a couple of important points here, Bob.

1. Bishop Rhoades voted for that change to the USCCA although you’ve falsely portrayed him as being against it.
2. You’ve been, shall we say, less than honest about what was cited in the denial of your imprimatur and deceptive about who “quoted” what.

We only learned these things recently from your board member Rick DeLano because you had been hiding these facts.

First, it was Carol Houghton who “cited” page 131 of the US Catechism. She wrote the letter denying you the imprimatur, not Bishop Rhoades. As I told Rick DeLano, bishops themselves typically do not review imprimatur applications. They have trusted individuals who do that work for them. Typically, bishops just sign off on their recommendations. Hardly a mere technicality if you’re out accusing a bishop of heresy.

Second, in the past you only mentioned pages 130-131 of the USCCA in regard to this particular imprimatur rejection and insisted that the only problem was your views on “Judaism”. But there was much more to it that you hid from everyone, Bob. Thanks to the (accidental?) candor of your board member, Rick DeLano, we now know that Carol Houghton also gave many other citations besides pp. 130-131 of the USCCA in your rejection letter. What else did the letter cite? Lumen Gentium 16, Nostra Aetate 4, CCC 839-40 and 597-598, Addresses/Speeches of Pope John Paul II, and the Documents of the Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with the Jews. Not only that, but your treatment of “Outside the Church There is No Salvation” was singled out as being problematic, citing Lumen Gentium 14-16 and CCC 846-848. So it wasn’t even “only” about your views on “Judaism” as you have claimed.

And your claim that “this was the very paragraph Rhoades quoted”? This looks like an outright falsehood to me. DeLano says that many works were cited, but neither you nor he has ever claimed that any were actually “quoted”.

You can read about this here: Rick DeLano Creates a Conspiracy Theory

Also, there are numerous solid reasons why the CASB2 volume was rightly denied an imprimatur. In fact, Dr. Art Sippo even predicted prior to the denial that it would not get an imprimatur, just from what he saw himself. See CASB2’s Missing Imprimatur. So your judgment that it was all about one sentence on pg. 131 of the USCCA is both rash and unsupported.

Not to digress too much, but I publicly challenge you again to publish the entire letter that Bishop Rhoades wrote to you on 29 June 2007 and the entire letter that Fr. King sent to you on 23 August 2007. It’s really unseemly for you to keep leaking selective parts that you then try to use to slander those two men. Stop telling us your version of what Bishop Rhoades and Fr. King supposedly did and said. Let us judge their words for ourselves. The longer you hide these communications, the more obvious it becomes that there are things in there that don’t comport very well with the story you’ve been telling. As it is, you’ve already been caught in multiple contradictions and distortions. See here: sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations and here: sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/rick-delano-creates-a-conspiracy

 

[DavidPalm]

Now, before we delve into your new charges against Bishop Rhoades, I would invite everybody here to read the answers given by Bishop Rhoades to the questions put to him at Catholics United for the Faith.

cufblog.org/?p=273

Bob focuses on two sentences among those answers:

Rhoades: I can see how the one statement that ‘the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them’ might be misunderstood. I would interpret it to mean that the Jewish people retain a special relationship to God because of the Old Covenant, but I would not interpret it to mean that the Jewish people can be saved through the Old Covenant apart from Christ.”

To which Bob replies:

Hence, Bishop Rhoades is saying that the Mosaic covenant cannot save the Jews.

All well and good, but that just proves that Bishop Rhoades is basing the alternative position (i.e., the “special relationship” of Jews with God), on the same Mosaic covenant he says was not salvific for the Jews – the very covenant Mr. Palm just told us does not give the Jews a special relationship with God, since only the Abrahamic covenant does!

I rest my case.

A couple of observations. First, you’re moving the goal posts on the bishop again, just as we predicted you might. We covered this in “Bishop Rhoades and the Dual Covenant Theory”. As you read along, pay particular attention to the last four paragraphs that begin with, “we hope that Bob doesn’t choose to change the field of play again by altering his original accusations and finding new reasons to level public accusations against Bishop Rhoades.”

Second, I’m really happy to see you finally admit that “Bishop Rhoades is saying that the Mosaic covenant cannot save the Jews” because in the past you’ve insisted that his letter “proves nothing”. Remember? We documented that in Direct Evidence of Bad Faith

So, I hope you’ll be publicly retracting and apologizing for that false statement.

But now, more directly to your new accusation: In order to avoid rash judgment – which is what the Church commands us to do when interpreting the orthodoxy of what another has said or written (see: CCC 2478) – the apparent contradiction you raise can be resolved by recognizing your over-emphasis on the concept of the Mosaic covenant being “revoked”. This over-emphasis (which is part and parcel of being a crude supersessionist, see here sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151556 ) can create a false hermeneutic of discontinuity between the covenants.

It’s a question of balance. The Church also says that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled by the New Covenant. In this limited sense, it would not be flatly wrong—let alone heretical—to view the Jewish people as having a special relationship with God “because of the Mosaic covenant”. Although, we believe it would be better and more accurate to say that it is because of the Fathers of Israel and the Abrahamic covenant, because that is its ultimate origin.

You wrote:

the very covenant Mr. Palm just told us does not give the Jews a special relationship with God, since only the Abrahamic covenant does!"

That’s not what I said. I didn’t say that “only the Abrahamic covenant” gives the Jews a special relationship with God. But, in fairness, I can see where some clarification is in order. Part of the difficulty revolves around different nuances to the word “gives”. For instance, if I write a will and give my car to my wife and then tell her that when she dies, it is to be given to my son, one could say that I gave my son the car, because I was the originator of the plan that provided it to him. But it wouldn’t be flatly wrong to say that my wife also gave my son the car.

We prefer to emphasize the fact that the special relationship with Israel originated in the Abrahamic covenant. We think it’s more complete and accurate to emphasize God’s love for the patriarchs and the Abrahamic covenant because that is the initial source of the relationship. But it’s not flatly false, let alone heretical, to note that the special relationship between God and the Jewish people does also continue into and through the Mosaic covenant and on into the New Covenant in Christ. In this limited sense, we can understand how a person could see the Mosaic covenant as related to the ongoing special relationship between the Jewish people and God. But, we also see how some confusion could arise from this formulation, which is why we haven’t used it ourselves. Additionally, we shouldn’t ignore or gloss over the fact that the Jewish people at large still hold to the Old Testament Scriptures, which were given to them under the auspices of the Mosaic covenant, and which retain their permanent value, even now. But, in saying all this, we do not mean to imply anything about the Mosaic covenant continuing to be valid as a “legal entity”, as you put it, or that there are some portions of it that continue to have any "legal validity”.

As I stated, I adhere to all that the Magisterium teaches about the status of the Mosaic covenant. And the Magisterium teaches that the Mosaic covenant was replaced by the New Covenant—it no longer exists or functions as a legal entity. But the Magisterium also teaches that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled by the New Covenant.

 

[DavidPalm]

As we wrote in A Response to a Critique of “All in the Family” :

God’s love and concern for the Jewish people – the relationship – is also something that continues under and was not “revoked” by the commencement of the New Covenant. God chose Israel before the swearing of the Mosaic covenant; therefore, Israel’s election is not dependent upon the status of that covenant. The election or “chosen-ness” of Israel is rooted in the Abrahamic covenant. It continued on through the Mosaic covenant and finally into the New and eternal Covenant in Christ.”

And in “All in the Family” itself, we wrote:

The specific, external form of thee Mosaic covenant – such as the legal prescriptions and the temple sacrifice of animals – was indeed abolished with the commencement of the New Covenant. But the underlying substance – from the moral precepts to the foundational principles of sacrifice and worship – is fulfilled and transformed by Christ. In and through Christ, the Mosaic covenant is thus actualized and subsumed into the New Covenant.

And what did you say in response to this passage in your “critique” of us? This is important: You agreed with us and said that you’ve been teaching essentially the same thing “for the past seven years.”

R. Sungenis: I have been teaching, writing, and lecturing for the past seven years that the Old Covenant has been legally revoked yet its divine principles of morality, worship and civility continue in the New Covenant. I have stated this fact in a dozen different ways, and it was all there for everyone to read in my many essays on the subject. The article I wrote for Culture Wars in January 2008: “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked,” displayed the balance between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant in great detail
(catholicintl.com/articles/The%20Old%20Covenant%20Revoked%20or%20Not%20Revoked %20for%20Culture%20Wars.pdf).
Additionally, in a recent dialogue I had with Dr. Art Sippo (who had been one of my most vociferous antagonists on Jewish issues), we came to a wonderful and satisfying agreement on this very issue when I showed him that the Old Covenant was legally revoked but that its principles still live on in the New Covenant. (catholicintl.com/dialogs/A_Successful_Dialogue_on_the_Old_Covenant.pdf). Dr. Sippo had more or less been saying the same thing but with different terminology. (*Are the Jews in the Family of God?*p. 15)

So perhaps we’ve found more important common ground. I want to make clear, again, that we are not saying that the Mosaic covenant continues to be valid as a “legal entity”, as you put it, or that there are some portions of it that continue to have any "legal validity”. And it certainly is not salvific – in fact, it never had the power to save.

But as the Apostle Paul, the Fathers, and the Magisterium of the Church teach, part of the fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant in the New Covenant is also the ongoing special relationship between God and the Jewish people and their continuing role in salvation history. While that special relationship did not start in the Mosaic covenant, it certainly continued to exist throughout it, and then into the New Covenant. Again, we believe it’s clearer and better to focus on the initial source of the special relationship and divine choice in the Abrahamic covenant. But with the Holy Father, we hold that Mosaic covenant wasn’t a completely separate covenant, unrelated to the Abrahamic covenant. As he wrote in Many Religions, One Covenant:

"The covenant with Moses is incorporated into the covenant with Abraham, and the Law becomes a mediator of promise…" (p. 56)

“…Paul, with his distinction between the covenant with Abraham and the covenant with Moses, has rightly interpreted the biblical text. This distinction, however, also supersedes the strict opposites of the Old and the New Covenant and implies that all history is a unity in tension: the one Covenant is realized in the plurality of covenants.” (p. 57)

In regard to the dynamic between “abolished” and “fulfilled”, Cardinal Dulles put it thusly:

With respect to the ceremonial law, therefore, we may say that the Old Covenant** is in a sense abolished while being at the same time fulfilled**. The law of Christ gives a definitive interpretation to the Torah of Moses. Yet the ancient rites retain their value as signs of what was to come. The priesthood, the temple, and the sacrifices are not extinct; they survive in a super-eminent way in Christ and the Church.

 

[DavidPalm]

Now, please permit me to cite a number of texts, from Card. Ratzinger, the fathers of Vatican I, and the Catechism that illustrate this dynamic. I cite them here at length because you’ve said you won’t read them any other way

The Holy Father gave the following additional insights into the relationship between the covenants in Many Religions, One Covenant:

[St. Paul] sees the covenant made with Abraham as the real, fundamental, and abiding covenant; according to Paul, the covenant made with Moses…constituted only an intermediary state in God’s providential plan…" (p. 55)

“With regard to the issue of the nature of the covenant, it is important to note that the Last Supper sees itself as making a covenant: it is the prolongation of the Sinai covenant, which is not abrogated, but renewed.” (p. 62)

This next quote from the Holy Father is particularly interesting because you’ve frequently singled out the sentence about the Sinai covenant being “superseded” while failing to provide the very important contextual sentences both before and after it that accentuate the aspect of fulfillment .

In this Torah, which is Jesus Himself, the abiding essence of what was inscribed on the stone tablets at Sinai is now written in living flesh, namely, the twofold command of love. This is set forth in Philippians 2;5 as ‘the mind of Christ”. To imitate him, to follow him in discipleship, is therefore, to keep the Torah, which has been fulfilled in him once and for all.”

Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded. But once what was provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it. So the expectation of the New Covenant, which becomes clearer and clearer as the history of Israel unfolds, does not conflict with the Sinai covenant; rather, it fulfills the dynamic expectation found in that very covenant." (p. 71)

That gives quite a different and fuller meaning than simply “Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded”, don’t you think?

And in God and the World Cardinal Ratzinger said this about the on-going role of Israel according to the flesh in salvation history:

…hand in hand with this belief goes the other, that Israel still has a mission to accomplish today. (God and the World, p. 149)

…we also know that while history still runs its course even this standing at the door fulfills a mission, one that is important for the world. **In that way this people still has a special place in God’s plans ** (God and the World, p. 150)

Question to Cardinal Ratzinger: “The question is whether the development of the world as a whole has not some mysterious connection with the development of the Jewish people.”

Cardinal Ratzinger’s response: “That actually seems to me to be quite obvious. The way that this tiny people, who no longer have any country, no longer any independent existence, but lead their life scattered throughout the word, yet despite this keep their own religion, keep their own identity, they are still Israel…This phenomenon in itself shows us that something else is at work…You can see, in this way, that there is something more than mere historical chance at work…Israel remains – and shows us something of the steadfastness of God.” (pp. 147-148)

Question to Cardinal Ratzinger: “God has not, then, retracted his word that Israel is the Chosen People?”

Cardinal Ratzinger’s response; “No, because he is faithful. As Christians, we believe that they will in the end be together with us in Christ. But they are not simply done with and left out of God’s plans…”

The Fathers of Vatican I (Postulatum Pro Hebrais):

The undersigned Fathers of the Council . . . express the wish that, finally exhausted by a wait no less futile than long, the Israelites hasten to recognize the Messiah, our Savior Jesus Christ, truly promised to Abraham and announced by Moses; thus completing and crowning, not changing, the Mosaic religion. On one hand, the undersigned fathers have the very firm confidence that the holy Council will have compassion on the Israelites, because they are always very dear to God on account of their fathers, and because it is from them that the Christ was born according to the flesh.

Somehow I think you would have been screaming about heresy, Judaizing, and Zionism if the bishops today had signed that document.

CCC 1967

The Law of the Gospel “fulfills,” refines, surpasses, and leads the Old Law to its perfection.21 In the Beatitudes, the New Law fulfillsthe divine promises by elevating and orienting them toward the “kingdom of heaven.” It is addressed to those open to accepting this new hope with faith - the poor, the humble, the afflicted, the pure of heart, those persecuted on account of Christ and so marks out the surprising ways of the Kingdom.

Note: the footnote here is to Matthew 5:17-19

CCC 1968

The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23

 

[DavidPalm]

Bringing this back to Bishop Rhoades’ statement about the sentence on page 131 of the USCCA, notice that he did not say whether or not he thought this was the best or only understanding of the source of the special relationship (the Mosaic covenant), he simply said that this is how he would interpret that particular statement made in the USCCA. It seems plain to me that he was trying to be as charitable as possible with this passage.

And this is similar to what you once did when writing to Cardinal Levada at the Vatican. Remember? You prudently and charitably acknowledged the possibility that you could be “misunderstanding the words or the intent of the United States Catechism” (p. 3 web.archive.org/web/20080228221643/http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/Letter%20to%20Levada%20re%20US%20Catechism%202.pdf ) Did you actually mean that, or were you being duplicitous?

You obviously wish he had come out more strongly. That’s fine. But what’s not fine is publicly making the kind of erroneous and slanderous accusations of heresy you’ve made against him.

So, ultimately, based on this isolated statement alone, we can’t tell for sure where Bishop Rhoades comes down on the best understanding of the source of the special relationship, because that wasn’t the focus of the question put to him. But note carefully that Bishop Rhoades did not say that the Jewish people retain that special relationship with God because the Old Covenant remains in force as a legal entity and that’s what you would have needed him to say for his statement to be heretical. What he said may not have satisfied you personally, but he said nothing erroneous, let alone heretical.

This all just brings to light what we’ve written about your theology, Bob. Your views are in line with what Cardinal Dulles would call an extreme or “crude supersessionism”.

I again invite you to read the following to see why they are. Please read all the way through the section titled [sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151556"]“Revoked”](").

And I again invite you to read Internal Contradictions In Sungenis’s Own Theology to see that even according to your own theology, it’s plain that the Jewish people retain a special relationship with God and they still have a unique role to play in salvation history (both for good and for ill, by the way). We wouldn’t call your view a “heresy”, but we would say that we believe it’s incorrect on certain points – out of balance and a bit confused at times.

Again, what you’re seeing at work here (from Bishop Rhoades, Michael and me), is what the Church has taught about avoiding rash judgment: see: CCC 2478. It would be nice if you would try it more regularly. You’ve shown that you’re capable of it – when you want to be.

So now, to finally return the discussion to the actual point I made before you tried to divert attention away from it:

If you’re going to publicly condemn people of “heresy”, you don’t get to use words “similar to” what the Church has used as a litmus test (such as “revoked”). And you most certainly don’t get to use words that the Church has never used, much less defined (like “supersessionism”). What is so hard to understand about this?

The point here is to remind you that you are not the Magisterium and you don’t have the authority to judge anybody based on your own vocabulary. At the very least, you should stick to actual magisterial language when judging others and the discussion will at least be easier and more Catholic. But it’s also unseemly and un-Christian to be throwing out public charges of heresy while adopting the most negative interpretations and failing to get any clarification from the person accused – such as you’ve done to Bishop Rhoades.

So, again, in light of your own, publicly stated standards of heresy:

Can you quote for us a clear teaching of the Magisterium that we have ever denied in what we’ve written?

Where has the Magisterium ever said that the Jewish people are not “chosen” in any way, so that there would be a contradiction with our understanding of the magisterial texts cited above?

Where has the Magisterium ever said that the Jewish people have no special relationship with God whatsoever, so that there would be a contradiction with our understanding of the magisterial texts cited above?

Since the answer is “nowhere”, how can anything we wrote in this regard be fairly be labeled “heresy”?

Thank you.

 

[dagelos]

I recently read that a very famous Pentacostal pastor wrote a book, “Defending Israel”. In this book he makes several claims the Jesus was sent for the Gentiles and not for the Jews. He basically says that the Jews fall under an old covenant with God and us Gentiles needed a messiah not the Jews. Is this true, I’ve never heard this before?

The Jews do not believe in Jesus.
They will not believe and therefore will not expect a Messiah as their Babylonian Talmud states ''Kethuboth 111a) In other words, to call the Jewish people the Messiah is no metaphor; they are literally just that; they are the “Messiah,” says the Talmud. ‘’

The word ‘‘Jews’’ is a slang term that is not mentioned until 2 Kings 16:6

Gentiles/E is a word that does not mean non-Jew is you have a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance,you will see that it has many meanings,but not non-Jew.

Also according to Webster’s 1828,Gentile carries a meaning which is defined as…
In civil affairs, the denomination was given to all nations who were not Romans.

Jesus was sent for Israel - not the state of Israel,Israel

Matthew 15:24:But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Jesus redeemed his people.

Luke 1:68:Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

Redeemed in Strong’s Greek is defined as…

1. lutrosis loo’-tro-sis from 3084; a ransoming (figuratively):–+ redeemed, redemption.

 

[DavidPalm]

My goodness, this thread about the Jews really seems to bring the first-time CAF post-ers out of the woodwork.

 

[dagelos]

My goodness, this thread about the Jews really seems to bring the first-time CAF post-ers out of the woodwork.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[YanniP]

Mr. Palm:

Do you tell a man who is dying under the law that he is still chosen, implying that the very thing that is leading to his death is still valid? Don’t you see that implication? The use of the term chosen perpetuates the very sin of self-righteousness that led the Jews to failure, and the death of the Mosaic Covenant.

I think, while we come very, very close to agreeing on major issues, we still have a slight disagreement about the Mosaic Covenant. I think the true Catholic position is best stated succinctly by Irenaeus: “And the Lord did not abrogate the natural precepts of the law, by which man is justified, which also those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, did observe previous to the giving of the law, but that He extended and fulfilled them” AH XXIII

Do you agree with that statement?

In post 25 in response to my continuing comment that it is not any part of the Mosaic Covenant being fulfilled you originally stated : “You’re creating a false dichotomy. This is a both/and, not an either/or. The Mosaic covenant was superseded AND fulfilled by the New Covenant in Christ.”

Then in your latest series, I believe you get closer. In post 47 you say: “We prefer to emphasize the fact that the special relationship with Israel originated in the Abrahamic covenant. We think it’s more complete and accurate to emphasize God’s love for the patriarchs and the Abrahamic covenant because that is the initial source of the relationship. But it’s not flatly false, let alone heretical, to note that the special relationship between God and the Jewish people does also continue into and through the Mosaic covenant and on into the New Covenant in Christ. In this limited sense, we can understand how a person could see the Mosaic covenant as related to the ongoing special relationship between the Jewish people and God.”

When you try to maintain a visage of the Mosaic Covenant, it is actually you who is creating a hermeneutic of discontinuity. The continuity is from the underlying law, the “natural precepts of the law” as Irenaeus stated, or the “religious content of the OT” which Heinish and Heidt aptly portrayed. This is the thread of the real Law, the real Torah, the true Fulfillment – Christ Jesus.

There is no reason to give more back to what has been abrogated or revoked, and playing this game whether for ecumenical purposes, or as reparation for past treatment, only fosters relativistic views and racial partiality. In this ever so dangerous time in the Middle East, the Church would be most prudent to bring Christ to those who need it imminently, not an ambiguous message of priority or comfort based on race.

Beyond this issue, your speculation on whether the “beloved” status brings more to the Jews than what has been brought to mankind as a whole remains speculation. In fact it remains illusory, as there is no explanation or specificity of what this “more” would be. In fact, even accepting an en masse conversion interpretation, the beloved status brings nothing, neither the Spirit or Grace, to the Jews dying daily before the Parousia. As the Council of Florence stated: “[the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”[Mt 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock."

So, the Jews, today, are not in the flock, and unless through baptism enter, they are on a very dark road. Just like anyone without Christ. That is the message that you should be writing about, leading others to a false comfort is uncharitable.

Thank you again for your comments, this is an important matter to discuss.

 

[Robert_Sungenis]

Reply #1

David, first, I didn’t accuse you of being a Dispensationalist. I said you have Dispensationalist-type views since you isolate OT passages from the rest of Scripture and avoid the patristic commentary on them, the same as Roy Schoeman does.

Second, I’m going to avoid all of your name-calling and caricatures because I don’t have time for a tit-for-tat with you. I’m also going to avoid all your charges that I’m ignoring council documents and calling popes heretics. I’m not. Let’s just stick with the facts.

As for the claim that you are “casting your entire case with Catholic magisterial texts,” then don’t bother quoting Deut 7:7 and other OT passages as your proof texts since there is no “Catholic magisterial texts” on those specific passages to support your position. Also, don’t fool yourself into thinking that you’ve “shown where the Church supports our position,” since the only texts you have used are those that the Church merely reiterates what Scripture says (e.g., Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate), not give an official exegesis of the passage that confirms your exegesis.

Your transition from the Jews having a “special relationship with God” to a “unique” relationship is more welcome since it seems to be a step down from your more lofty designation in previous posts. Yes, I’ll agree, the Jews are “unique.” The problem is that you want to pack the word “unique” with a Deut 7:7 definition and avoid the 1Thess 2:14-16 definition. If anything, 1Thess 2:14-16 is the final commentary, not Deut 7:7, which was written in the OT when God was still fulfilling his physical promises to Abraham’s seed. That status changed when Christ came. HE became the “unique” son, and Israel became merely the shadow or anti-type to the Type.

You state that “we said what sacred Scripture and the Magisterium say, namely, that ‘in view of the divine choice (electionem), they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers’ (Lumen Gentium 16)” as if this supports your position. It doesn’t, since the Magisterium doesn’t define what it means by “divine choice” or “the election,” and this is the perennial problem with “Magisterial” proof texts you commandeer to yourself, especially on this subject. If the “divine choice” refers to the elect Jews that are separated from non-elect Jews (as St. Paul clearly teaches in Roman 9:6 and 11:5-11) then you simply have no basis reading into Romans 11:28 that “the election” refers to all Jews.

You write: “I ask you then: is there some other group of people that is singled out in Scripture and the Magisterium as being specially ‘beloved’ by God ‘for the sake of the patriarchs of Israel’?” but you are missing the two perspectives given by the Greek grammar. If Paul had only said: “they are beloved for the sake of the Fathers” without “from the standpoint of election,” your interpretation would be correct. But since he prefaces his remark with “from the standpoint of election” you are wrong, since “the election” was previously defined in Romans 11:5-7 as applying only to the remnant of Jews, not to the Jews as Jews. This is why I continually ask you why you continually ignore the Israel v. Israel theme that St. Paul uses throughout the book of Romans.

In order for your interpretation to stand you would need to have another passage from the New Testament that refers “election” to the Jews as Jews, or one that shows that the Jews are “beloved” simply because they are Jews. But there are no such passages. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, they go the other way (e.g., 1Thess 2:14-16: “the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved – so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath has come upon them at last!”). So, you are left with your question-begging interpretation of Romans 11:28 that neither the context of Romans 11 (“the election” in vr. 7) supports nor is supported by any other verse in the NT. Neither Lumen Gentium nor Nostra Aetate are going to help you either since they don’t explain themselves.

The question of what is meant by “beloved” and why it was chosen here is also an issue. You wish to see “beloved” as representing some “special” or “unique” relationship that the Jews as Jews have with God, but you are again begging the question, since there is no proof for that in the context. The context began with the question of whether the Jew could even be saved considering all the evil they perpetrated in the OT. The answer comes back, Yes, they can still be saved, at least a remnant of them, but the context does not go beyond that perspective. In other words, the only reason the Jews as Jews are “beloved” is because God is still going to give them a chance to be saved, not because they, being Jewish, possess or deserve some special status with God; and this is precisely why St. Paul refers to “the election” in Romans 11:28, not “the nation” or “the people of Israel.” In other words, he does not say “from the standpoint of national identity they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.”

 

[Robert_Sungenis]

Reply #2

God promised Abraham that his seed would be as the stars of heaven for multitude, and that some of these stars would be Jews (Gen. 22; Is 10:22; Romans 11:5-7). This was fulfilled in two ways:
The first was to physical Israel, and those promises were completed in the OT (cf. Genesis 15:18-21; Joshua 21:43-45; 1 Kings 8:56; Nehemiah 9:7-8). These promises were unconditional. They were also “for the sake of the fathers” since Deut 9:5 says that Israel did not inherit the land for its obedience but because God made a promise to Abraham. But, once fulfilled, these promises were not irrevocable, because keeping them depended on Israel’s obedience to both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant. These physical earthly promises were made only to Abraham’s physical seed and not Abraham because Abraham never received any physical promises (cf. Heb 10:16-18. 39-40).

The second was to spiritual Israel, an eternal salvation promise made to Abraham and his spiritual descendants. God swore an oath to fulfill it and thus it is “irrevocable” (Genesis 12:3; Heb 6:13-18; Romans 11:29).
But that is as far as it goes in Romans 11. There are no physical earthly promises mentioned in Romans 11. It is only heavenly, spiritual, just as Hebrews 11.

Hence, you cannot extract from Romans 11’s heavenly context another level of meaning that applies physical and earthly promises to the Jewish people (e.g., giving them the land of Palestine on the basis of it being a divine entitlement left over from the OT; elevating the Judaistic/Talmudic religion as a pathway to God; elevating the Jewish people to a “special” divine status” apply OT prophecy about “Israel” to national Israel today and claiming that God gives them special protection; etc).

This is the gross error Roy Schoeman displayed in his “Salvation is from the Jews,” and he arrives at that position, ironically enough, by ignoring “two thousand years of tradition” and by unexegeted citations from Nostra Aetate.

And it is apparent that you and Mr. Forrest are making a similar error, as is Bishop Rhoades and many other bishops and cardinals today who are favoring the Jews politically, religiously, financially and culturally simply because they are Jews. Romans 11 is concerned only with salvation. You seem to be concerned with giving the Jews some preferential treatment or status on earth simply because they are Jews.

 

[DavidPalm]

To “Yanni”:

I think, while we come very, very close to agreeing on major issues, we still have a slight disagreement about the Mosaic Covenant. I think the true Catholic position is best stated succinctly by Irenaeus: “And the Lord did not abrogate the natural precepts of the law, by which man is justified, which also those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, did observe previous to the giving of the law, but that He extended and fulfilled them”

First, let me say that I appreciate your improving approach to disagreement, “Yanni”. And I agree that we aren’t all that far apart on the theological issues. I have no problem with people disagreeing with one another on some of these finer points, as long as ridiculous charges of “heresy” and the like aren’t being publicly launched like hand grenades.

In the Holy Father’s writings on the topic, it is clear that some of these finer issues involving the Jewish people are still being sifted and considered. Unfortunately, Bob Sungenis confuses his personal opinions and interpretations with defined Catholic dogma and that leads him to level unjustified accusations of “heresy”. There’s a part of “By Sungenis Alone” that lays out the stark dichotomy between the approach taken by our Holy Father on this topic and the approach taken by Bob Sungenis:

The Humility and Courage of the Pope vs. Robert Sungenis
sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/03/by-sungenis-alone_29.html#41

If you read what Michael Forrest and I wrote to Ben Douglass back in early 2007, you’ll see we’ve been pointing this same problem out for some time now: sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/02/ben-douglass-reviews-salvation-is-from.html

I would also point out that it is not just the precepts of “natural law” in the Mosaic covenant that were fulfilled in the New Covenant. Even ceremonial aspects of that covenant were fulfilled, as we see for example in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Again, this does not mean that they continue to exist as “legal entities” in some way parallel to the New Covenant. But it also means that, while legally abolished and superceded, they are not just “done for”. This is especially true of aspects of the covenantal relationship that were established in the Abrahamic covenant—covenants, by their very nature, are not just contracts, they are relationships. And the on-going relationship of God with his earthly “first-born” – Israel according to the flesh – is, according to the witness of Scripture, the Fathers, and the Magisterium, brought forward into the New Covenant.

Do you tell a man who is dying under the law that he is still chosen, implying that the very thing that is leading to his death is still valid? Don’t you see that implication? The use of the term chosen perpetuates the very sin of self-righteousness that led the Jews to failure, and the death of the Mosaic Covenant.

I understand your concern, but I disagree with your diagnosis of the actual cause of the problem and, subsequently, your remedy. In your scenario, the actual problem is a false or exaggerated understanding of what it means to be “chosen” – and that could certainly lead to death. (NB: Just as a false or exaggerated understanding of what it means to be “Catholic” can lead to death. If one believes that simply being in the pews each week leads to salvation, they will be in for a rude awakening when they meet Jesus!) The correct remedy for that ailment is not to adopt the opposite extreme and to deny completely that the Jewish people retain any unique place in God’s plans and that they remain dearly loved by God for the sake of the fathers of Israel. The correct remedy is to steadfastly maintain and uphold all that the Church is saying. The Church has been laying out a balance between those two extremes. We have tried to maintain that very balance in our presentations, with the emphasis on the need of the Jewish people, like all men, for salvation in Christ through baptism and entrance into the Catholic Church.

You keep casting this as “speculation” on our part. You offer in response the opinions of some German theologians. But I’ve provided evidence from the writings of JPII, Benedict XVI, the CCC, the fathers of Vatican I, Lumen Gentium 16 and Nostra Aetate 4 that the Jewish people still have a special relationship with God and that they also have a unique role to play in salvation history that has not been obliterated by the commencement of the New Covenant (including, of course, the expectation of a future conversion of the Jewish people to Christ, witnessed by dozens of Fathers and Doctors of the Church and the CCC.) Indeed, Lumen Gentium explicitly speaks of “those people who have not yet received the Gospel” and then says of the Jewish people that “in view of divine choice electionem] , they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom 11:29).” This is a teaching of the Magisterium, so I don’t know why you case it as mere personal speculation on our part.

But I have pointed out repeatedly that the Church has also clearly taught that this relationship and role cannot save them by itself. In fact, even when the Mosaic covenant was in force, it could not save them. It never had the power to save, period. Jews, like everyone else, need Jesus Christ and His Church for salvation.

 

[DavidPalm]

Beyond this issue, your speculation on whether the “beloved” status brings more to the Jews than what has been brought to mankind as a whole remains speculation. In fact it remains illusory, as there is no explanation or specificity of what this “more” would be. In fact, even accepting an en masse conversion interpretation, the beloved status brings nothing, neither the Spirit or Grace, to the Jews dying daily before the Parousia.

I appreciate your concern for the conversion of the Jewish people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, “Yanni”. We have always upheld the Church’s teaching on that. But now, I’d like to ask you a question and I hope you will answer it forthrightly. You’re rightly concerned for balance (as are we). Do you agree with the approach of your friend Bob Sungenis, who regularly puts forth a theology openly hostile to the Jewish people and laces that presentation with the views of white supremacists such as David Duke, “Rev” Ted Pike, Jack Mohr, the folks at National Vanguard, et. al. He seems to have no problem at all singling out the Jewish people as especially wicked, especially deserving of God’s wrath, and singled out as specially “hardened”. So he has his own theology in which the Jewish people are “special”, but it just so happens all to be negative. Here’s a sampling:

“It’s time for people to wake up and stop being corralled by the Jewish slave masters.”

“How is it that the Jews have garnered such a market on suffering that Bishop Rhoades finds it necessary to pay homage to them? Is it because they own the mortgages on the Catholic buildings erected in his and other dioceses?”

“The Jews are godless and getting more ungodly with each passing day.”

“I am merely doing the same thing Jesus did when he confronted the sins of the Jews…Unfortunately, the Jews haven’t changed in our day. They are still the same godless racists they were in Jesus’ day. Few of them have repented of their sins.”

“The whole tenor of the New Testament is that God is finally rejecting the Jews (except for a remnant)…God is giving up on the Jews. In the language of John 6:44, God is no longer going to draw them to Jesus. In fact, God will become active in keeping them in unbelief by blinding them to the truth (Romans 11:8). That is the kind of God we have; a very dynamic God…and the Jews will die in their unbelief.”

“the ‘hardening’ God has cast upon the Jews at large for their general unbelief will remain until the end of time…”

See The Theology of Prejudice, Internal Contradictions in Sungenis’ Theology?, and Sungenis on Romans 11: Theologial Bias in Biblical Exegesis.

Here’s an example of a Jew who actually became a Catholic and an example of how Bob has treated him:

The Origin of the Schoeman Forgery Revealed

Do you have any problem with that sort of behavior?

How about the examples cited here:

Michael Forrest Apologizes and Offers a Correction

And in fact, Bob Sungenis has repeatedly promised to stop these attacks and focus exclusively on theological issues, only to return again to the same behavior:

Proverbs 26:11 and Saying “Peace!” When There Is No Peace.

Just look at his web site now—it’s a veritable clearinghouse for Jewish political conspiracies. What happened to all those promises?

Remember, in your very first post, you stepped in to publicly warn people about the supposed dangers of what we wrote in “All in the Family”, going so far as to say that you were “amazed” that our article got published. I appreciate that you’ve significantly changed your opinion. But, have you ever publicly said anything about the kinds of views from Bob Sungenis listed above? Do you believe that those kinds of statements and the sources behind them represent the sort of balance you are seeking and are rightly viewed as an effective way to reach the Jewish people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Thank you.

 

[DavidPalm]

Ah, Bob I see we cross-posted. I’ll get to your latest as I’m able. Thanks.

 

[DavidPalm]

Bob, earlier you boldly stated,

[David Palm’s] new boast is that the word ‘revoked’ isn’t used in ‘Scripture, the Fathers or the Magisterium.’ He made a similar boast about the word ‘supersessionism,’ making a big deal of the fact that he ‘can’t find it in an official Catholic document.’ He even tried to make a distinction between ‘supersede’ and ‘supersessionism,’ as specious as that is. The temptation when one hears these Pharisaical-type arguments is to just leave the conversation. But for the sake of the people on this forum, I’m going to set the record straight.

We’re still waiting. The problem is that you can’t “set the record straight” about “supersessionism” or “revoked” because what we’ve stated is correct.

The Church has never used “supersessionism” at all, let alone defined it. And, frankly, it hasn’t even used the word “supersede.” We’ve repeatedly given copious evidence that “supersessionism” isn’t a Catholic term and that it has a wide range of meanings and a pejorative nuance: [sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151555"]here]() and here. Therefore, it’s completely inappropriate for you to be using this term as an absolute litmus test of anyone’s orthodoxy, such as you have done to Bishop Rhoades. If you have no other arguments to present, then it’s time to acknowledge these facts.

Similarly, your insistence on the precise word “revoked” is unjustifiable. You’ve even gone so far as to name your supposedly definitive treatment of the issue, “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked” and have stated that “revoked” is one of “the most important legal words related to the topic of the Old Covenant today” (“My response to Bishop Rhoades”, p. 2). That’s quite a bold statement considering the fact that the Church has managed to avoid using it to describe the status of the Old Covenant for 2,000 years!

While “revoked” is “similar to” the actual words the Church has used, it’s not identical to the actual words the Church has used. “Revoked” carries an additional negative nuance that the actual terms the Church has used – such as abolished and abrogated – do not. Words like “abolished” and “abrogated” keep the focus on the particular item being “abolished” or “abrogated” without necessarily implying anything about the holder of the item. Conversely, “revoked” also tends also to imply a rebuke of the holder of the item. If I say that someone’s license has been “abolished”, “abrogated” or “superseded”, this implies absolutely nothing about the license holder himself. The focus is on the license. Conversely, if I say that someone’s license has been “revoked”, that naturally tends to imply that the license holder has done something wrong and that is why the license has been taken away. This is just another reason why you shouldn’t be creating your own vocabulary to condemn people of heresy, Bob.

Your insistence on these non-magisterial terms is further proof of what we’ve called a “theology of prejudice”. You often seem to strive mightily in a misguided attempt to divorce the Church from its Jewish heritage and influence – whether it’s “revoked” or your denial that the “Olive Tree” is “Israel” or your opposition to the expectation of the “Conversion of the Jews” or your denial that the Jewish people remain “chosen” and dear to God for the sake of the fathers of Israel.

Again, I recommend the section we wrote on the topic of the word “revoked”: please scan down to the section entitled, “Revoked?”

Mr. Palm’s attempt to make the Jewish race special, above the Gentile races, and to call the Jewish race “the election” is categorically wrong. Not only that, it is heretical. It is, as I said many times, “spiritual racism.” There simply is no such teaching in Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium to support his novel thesis.

Again, I’ve been asking you repeatedly to back up your charge of heresy with actual citations from the Magisterium. And what have we gotten from you? Absolutely nothing aside from your private interpretation and no Church teaching to back it up. But, remarkably, this hasn’t stopped you from trying to turn this back on me:

As for the claim that you are “casting your entire case with Catholic magisterial texts,” then don’t bother quoting Deut 7:7 and other OT passages as your proof texts since there is no “Catholic magisterial texts” on those specific passages to support your position.

Bob, did you notice that not a single one of your Scripture citations came backed up by Catholic magisterial texts? Can you please give us more than your private interpretation to back up any of that? Because I can and did.

You want to separate out the “beloved” of Rom 11:28 from the “enemies” of the very same verse, as if St. Paul is talking about two completely different groups of Jews; to use your words, “there are Jews that are ‘enemies of the gospel’, but there is a smaller group of ‘elect’ Jews who are ‘beloved of God” and “elect Jews that are separated from non-elect Jews”. Elsewhere I’ve gone into the exegetical reasons why that argument isn’t convincing and referenced a host of orthodox Catholic exegetes to back that up (see here).

But I’ll tell you what, let’s just focus on texts that come from the Catholic hierarchy, OK?