Mark: That being said, I still think you are a talented
apologist who makes many excellent points - your recent critique
of Scott Hahn's dissertation and the incipient Protestantism
of his methods of exegesis, for instance, was brilliant.
R. Sungenis: Thank you, Mark. I'm glad you see the truth
of that issue. I wish more people would.
Mark: I read your dialogue with John Pacheco
on Romans 11 and the conversion of the Jews on the CAI website.
While I am not qualified to comment on your detailed exegesis
of Romans 11:25-27 and the other relevant verses, I think you
are wrong in your assertion that the Church does not teach that
this passage refers to a future conversion of the Jews.
Traditionally, that is precisely what the Church has taught.
The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on the "General Judgment"
states:
"Conversion of the Jews: According to the interpretation
of the Fathers, the conversion of the Jews towards the end of
the world is foretold by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans
(11:25-26): 'For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of
this mystery, . . . that blindness in part has happened in Israel,
until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all
Israel should be saved as it is written: There shall come out
of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness
from Jacob.'"
R. Sungenis: Mark, I understand why you might hold this
in high esteem, but let me warn you that the Catholic Encyclopedia
is not our official authority on these matters. As for the CE's
comment on Romans 11:25-26, that is merely the statement of a
single person who has no ecclesiastical authority, except to write
his opinion. If, as he says, his view of Romans 11 is the "interpretation
of the Fathers," what Fathers does he list in the article? I'm
sure if he had listed them, you would have spared no expense in
making me privy to them. Statements such as "According to the
interpretation of the Fathers" mean absolutely nothing unless
the person writing such a statement tells us which Fathers believed
said doctrine, with references. His statement "according to the
interpretation of the Fathers" makes it sound as if dozens of
Fathers held to the idea, but you and I know that is simply not
the case. Below, you only find two Fathers who you think support
the idea. In fact, such statements are very misleading, since
they give the impression to the uniformed reader that there is
no question that a consensus among the Fathers existed. END
Mark: You write that only two Fathers, Sts. Jerome
and Cyril of Alexandria, predict the final conversion of the Jews.
But in fact this belief is held by close to a consensus of the
Fathers. Sts. Augustine and Chrysostom, who you quote as opposing
this belief, say elsewhere that there will be a final conversion:
Augustine, City of God XX.29
After admonishing them to give heed to the law of
Moses, as he foresaw that for a long time to come they would
not understand it spiritually and rightly, he went on to say,
"And, behold, I will send to you Elias the Tishbite before the
great and signal day of the Lord come: and he shall turn the
heart of the father to the son, and the heart of a man to his
next of kin, lest I come and utterly smite the earth." **It
is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful,
that in the last days before the judgment the Jews shall believe
in the true Christ, that is, our Christ, by means of this great
and admirable prophet Elias who shall expound the law to them.**
For not without reason do we hope that before the coming of
our Judge and Saviour Elias shall come, because we have good
reason to believe that he is now alive; for, as Scripture most
distinctly informs us, he was taken up from this life in a chariot
of fire. When, therefore, he is come, he shall give a spiritual
explanation of the law which the Jews at present understand
carnally, and shall thus "turn the heart of the father to the
son," that is, the heart of fathers to their children; for the
Septuagint translators have frequently put the singular for
the plural number. And the meaning is, that the sons, that is,
the Jews, shall understand the law as the fathers, that is,
the prophets, and among them Moses himself, understood it.
R. Sungenis: Again, I appreciate the effort here Mark,
but I must say that quoting Augustine and Chrysostom as referring
to some future conversion of Jews, especially when in other places
Augustine says something quite the opposite of what appears to
be said above, hardly forms a "consensus" of Patristic witness
to support your contention. There were over a hundred fathers
worthy of note, and hardly any of them predict a future conversion
of the Jews, let alone a massive conversion. Instead, many of
these same Fathers wrote many essays remarking about the unbelief
of the Jews, and how it will continue to the end of time. Surely,
in recognizing the Jews' unbelief these same Fathers would also
be anxious to write about a future conversion of Jews if this
had been the consensus among them. As it stands, it must not have
been a consensus, since hardly any of them write about a future
conversion.
As for Augustine, there is nothing in the above quote that refers
to a national restoration nor a massive conversion of Jews. Augustine
simply says that Elijah will return to speak to the Jews. He doesn't
say how many, nor does the passage from which he quotes (Malachi
4:5-6). In keeping with his remark in Letters 149, Augustine still
has in view a remnant of Jews, and thus he is not departing from
his view.
Second, it is by no means a consensus among the Fathers, or the
Medievals, nor has the Church made any statement to this effect
-- that Elijah will return in person before the end of time. Although
that idea is floated around by some people, there is little support
for that idea. At best, it is an open issue.
Third, the New Testament makes clear that Malachi's prophecies
of the coming of Elijah are not necessarily referring to a future
return of Elijah, in body, to the earth before the end of time.
The only interpretation the New Testament gives us about Malachi's
prophecy is that it is to be interpreted as referring to John
the Baptist who came in the "spirit and power of Elijah" (Matthew
11:14; 17:3; Mark 9:11-12). That much we know for sure.
One of the most important verses in regard to this is Luke 1:16-17,
which refers to John the Baptist.
"And he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to
the Lord their God. It is he who will go as a forerunner before
Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the
fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude
of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the
Lord."
As you can see, Luke 1:16-17 is quoting from Malachi 4:5-6, and
it is applied to the first coming of Christ, as are all the other
prophecies about the conversion of Israel. I don't know one prophecy
that confines Israel's conversion to the end of time.
In fact, Luke 1:16-17 matches the prophecy of Zachariah in Luke
1:67-79, which refers to the salvation of Israel as occurring
with the first coming of Christ (the same passage I sent to John):
68 "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited
and redeemed his people,
69 and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house
of his servant David,
70 as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old,
71 that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand
of all who hate us;
72 to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember
his holy covenant,
73 the oath which he swore to our father Abraham,
74 to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our
enemies, might serve him without fear,
75 in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of
our life.
76 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,
77 to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness
of their sins,
78 through the ter mercy of our God, when the day shall dawn
upon us from on high
79 to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow
of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace."
Added to this is the fact that "the day of the Lord" is not confined
to the end of time. Acts 2:19-21 refers to Christ's death as the
time when Joel's prophecy of the "day of the Lord" was fulfilled.
"And I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs
on the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20
the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood,
before the day of the Lord comes, the great and manifest day.
21 And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord
shall be saved."
The gospels record that the sun was darkened at the death of
Jesus, in fulfillment of Joel's prophecy (Matt 23:45).
Finally, there is no reference in the Old or New Testament that
specifically and categorically teaches that Elijah will come just
prior to the return of Christ, nor any verse that specifically
teaches a future mass conversion of the Jewish people or national
restoration, other than what has been happening for the past two-thousand
year in the remnant. Elijah's "future coming," if there is such
an incident, may refer to nothing more than the Lord coming with
all his saints at the very end of time to usher in the New Heaven
and New Earth (1 Thess 3:13; 4:14-17).
Mark: St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel
of Matthew, HOMILY LVII.
For the Scriptures speak of two advents of Christ,
both this that is past, and that which is to come; and declaring
these Paul said, "The grace of God, that bringeth salvation,
hath appeared, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly
lusts, we should live soberly, and righteously, and godly."Behold
the one, hear how he declares the other also; for having said
these things, he added, "Looking for the blessed hope and appearing
of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ."And the prophets
too mention both; of the one, however, that is, of the second,
they say Elias will be the forerunner. For of the first, John
was forerunner; whom Christ called also Elias, not because he
was Elias, but because he was fulfilling the ministry of that
prophet. For as the one shall be forerunner of the second advent,
so was the other too of the first. But the Scribes, confusing
these things and perverting the people, made mention of that
other only to the people, the second advent, and said, "If this
man is the Christ, Elias ought to have come beforehand." Therefore
the disciples too speak as follows, "How then say the Scribes,
Elias must first come ?"
Therefore also the Pharisees sent unto John, and asked him,
"Art thou Elias?"making no mention anywhere of the former
advent. What then is the solution, which Christ alleged? "Elias
indeed cometh then, before my second advent; and now too is
Elias come;" so calling John. In this sense Elias is come:
but if thou wouldest seek the Tishbite, he is coming. Wherefore
also He said, "Elias truly cometh, and shall restore all things."All
what things? Such as the Prophet Malachi spake of; for "I
will send you," saith He, "Elias the Tishbite, who shall restore
the heart of father to son, lest I come and utterly smite
the earth."
Seest thou the accuracy of prophetical language? how, because
Christ called John, Elias, by reasoning of their community
of office, lest thou shouldest suppose this to be the meaning
of the prophet too in this place, He added His country also,
saying, "the Tishbite;"whereas John was not a Tishbite. And
herewith He sets down another sign also, saying, "Lest I come
and utterly smite the earth," signifying His second and dreadful
advent. For in the first He came not to smite the earth. For,
"I came not," saith He, "to judge the world, but to save the
world."
To show therefore that the Tishbite comes before that other
advent, which hath the judgment, He said this. And the reason
too of his coming He teaches withal. And what is this reason?
**That when He is come, he may persuade the Jews to believe
in Christ, and that they may not all utterly perish at His
coming. Wherefore He too, guiding them on to that remembrance,
saith, "And he shall restore all things;" that is, shall correct
the unbelief of the Jews that are then in being.**
Hence the extreme accuracy of his expression; in that he
said not, "He will restore the heart of the son to the father,"
but "of the father to the son."For the Jews being fathers
of the apostles, his meaning is, that he will restore to the
doctrines of their sons, that is, of the apostles, the hearts
of the fathers, that is, the Jewish people's mind.
"But I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.
Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer of them. Then they
understood that He spake to them of John."
And yet neither the Scribes said this, nor the Scriptures;
but because now they were sharper and more attentive to His
sayings, they quickly caught His meaning.
And whence did the disciples know this? He had already told
them, "He is Elias, which was for to come;"but here, that
he hath come; and again, that "Elias cometh and will restore
all things." But be not thou troubled, nor imagine that His
statement wavers, though at one time He said, "he will come,"
at another, "he hath come." For all these things are true.
Since when He saith, "Elias indeed cometh, and will restore
all things," He means Elias himself, and **the conversion
of the Jews which is then to take place**; but when He saith,
"Which was for to come," He calls John, Elias, with regard
to the manner of his administration. Yea, and so the prophets
used to call very one of their approved kings, David; and
the Jews, "rulers of Sodom,"and "sons of Ethiopians;" because
of their ways. For as the other shall be forerunner of the
second advent, so was this of the first.