Neither the original Hebrew, nor the Latin Vulgate, had "the Tishbite" added to Elijah. The Hebrew reads ELIYAH HANABIYA (that is, "Elijah the prophet"). The Latin Vulgate reads "Heliam prophetam," while the Douay-Rheims reads "Elias the prophet." There are no Hebrew textual variants with any other reading. Chrysostom is getting his reading from the LXX which has "Elion ton Thesbiten," but this is obviously a mere Jewish interpretation of the passage, not the inspired text. In fact, this may have been the reason the Jews were confused regarding the real nature of Elijah's appearance, and missed his identity being fulfilled in John the Baptist (cf., Matt 16:14; 17:10). Obviously, if they were looking for the "Tishbite" instead of John the Baptist, they would have been mislead by their own translation of the Hebrew text, and apparently so was Chrysostom. If he can make such an error with the text, then we certainly can't put much stock in is conclusions about anything else regarding Elijah's appearance.

In any case, even if Chrysostom were right about the "correcting the unbelief of the Jews that are then in being," this does not necessarily refer to some massive conversion or national restoration. If, as Chrysostom admits himself, that there are two advents of Elijah, and yet the first advent of Elijah (viz., John the Baptist) yielded only a remnant of Jewish believers (Romans 11:5), then by prophetic equilibrium, there would only be a remnant who turn from their unbelief at the end of time. This is why, for example, Apocalypse 1:7 speaks of Jews at Christ's return "seeing the one whom they pierced" and "wailing" at his return. The Greek word for "wailing" refers to utter sorrow and dismay, and there is no hint in that verse, or any other verse, that there is going to be a massive conversion of Jews at the end.

Mark: Now, I would agree with Robert that this conversion of Israel means simply a religious conversion in the last times. It does not necessarily imply a political restoration of Israel, still less does it imply fundamentalist dispensationalist theology. (I am a supporter of Israel, but on secular political grounds, not religious ones. To me, it is promises made to Jewish settlers by the British Colonial administration, just reparations for the Holocaust, failure of the Arab states to accept a reasonable compromise in 1948, and legitimate right of conquest in defensive wars in 1948 and 1967, and not the Old Testament or Revelations which underlies the Jewish claim to a state.) However, Catholic eschatology has traditionally held that there will be a mass conversion of the Jewish people to the true faith just before the Second Coming. I am at a loss to understand why Mr. Sungenis is so keen to deny this traditional exegesis.

R. Sungenis: Mark, I challenge you to show any consensus of Patristic or Medieval thought, or any pope or council, which has ever taught that "Catholic eschatology has traditionally held that there will be a mass conversion of the Jewish people to the true faith just before the Second Coming." At best, you have a couple of Fathers referring to a conversion of Jews, but none of them refer to a "mass conversion." In addition, we see above that Chrysostom has based his interpretation on an incorrect reading of Malachi 4:5. If your conception where such a "traditional" idea, we would be finding it all over the Patrictics and Medievals. But not only do we not find any such consensus, we actually have Fathers that are opposed to such an idea, as I detailed previously.

---

Mark: Apparently, you do not find my quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Augustine, or Chrysostom to be persuasive, saying "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."

Actually, the quotes I found were the best I could do in an hour or two of fiddling around on the Internet. But your challenge drove me to do a bit more research in my own books and the local Catholic seminary library. I come away more persuaded than ever that there was a broad Patristic, Medieval, and Counter-Reformation consensus about a final conversion of the Jews.

Let's start with recent (but orthodox, pre-Vatican II) authorities. You note that the Catholic Encyclopedia article has no authority beyond that of its author. But my point was that he makes this assertion as common knowledge of what the Fathers taught, just as Augustine calls the idea of a final conversion "a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful."

Other recent authorities have also repeated the same belief as representing a common consensus. Ludwig Ott lists "the conversion of the Jews" as one of the "Signs of the Second Coming" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1952, p. 486-487), citing Romans 11:25-32 as his authority.

R. Sungenis: Mark, I understand why you might find Ott supporting your view, but let's read what he says.

On page 486 he writes:

"The conversion of the Jews: In Rom. 11:25-32, St. Paul reveals 'the mystery' : When the fullness, that is the number ordained by God, of the Gentiles has entered the kingdom of God 'all Israel' will be converted and saved. There is question of a morally universal conversion of the Jews."

First, Ott is saying nothing different than what I have said. If you read my essay carefully, I maintain that "all Israel" will be saved when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

Second, Ott offers no exegesis of the text, so we don't know in which direction he is going. As I explained by using the context of Romans 11, God has been saving Jews, and will continue to save Jews, until the end of time. The sum total of all those Jews is "all Israel," and thus it can be safely said, as God promised to Abraham, that all Israel will be saved, but whether this will be a massive conversion in the future is nowhere taught in Scripture, nor does Ott himself say so.

In fact, Ott says just the opposite. He says, "There is question of a morally universal conversion of the Jews." In other words, he knows that there are people, such as yourself, who teach there will be a universal conversion, but to Ott that view is at best a "question."

Third, let's look at what Ott says about your Elijah theory. He writes:

"The conversion of the Jewish people is frequently brought into a causal connection with the coming-again of Elias, BUT WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION. The Prophet Malachy announces: 'Behold, I will send you Elias the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers: lest I come, and strike the earth with anathema.' Jewry understood the passage as referring to a physical coming-again of Elias (Ecclus 48:10) but erroneously placed it in the beginning of the Messianic era, and saw in Elias a precursor of the Messiah (John 1:21; Mt 16:14). Jesus confirms the coming of Elias, but refers it to the appearance of John the Baptist; of whom the Angel had foretold that he would go before the Lord, that is, God in the spirit and in the power of Elias (Luke 1:17): 'He (John) is Elias, who (according to the prophecy of the Prophet) is to come' (Mt 11:14). 'But I say to you that Elias is already come: and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they had a mind (Mt 17:12; Mk 9:13). JESUS DOES NOT SPEAK EXPLICITLY OF A FUTURE COMING OF ELIAS BEFORE THE GENERAL JUDGMENT, PROBABLY NOT EVEN IN MT 17:11 ('Elias indeed shall come and restore all things'), in which the prophecy of Malachias is simply reproduced. JESUS SEE IT ALREADY FULFILLED IN THE APPEARANCE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST (Mt. 17:12)."

As you can see, Mark, Ott agrees with my position. Obviously, Ott is aware of the few Fathers that said Elijah would come in the future, but he dismisses them as "without sufficient foundation," as I do. Ott agrees that Jesus did not teach it either, but insists that Jesus taught that Elijah came figuratively in the person is John the Baptist.

Mark: The Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, 1953, says of Romans 11:25-32: "From the present, (verses) 1-24, St. Paul turns his attention to the future. The time will come when the present problem of Israel's exclusion from the salvation of the Messias will cease to exist because of her conversion, which will follow the conversion of the Gentiles. The final conversion of Israel could not be known to St. Paul from any natural source." It then goes on to argue that St. Paul deduces the "final conversion of Israel" from the permanence of God's promises and prophecies, which promise the eventual salvation of Israel.

R. Sungenis: Again, we have the same problem. Orchard offers no exegesis of the very passage he is citing. He, as other commentators on this passage do without sufficient study, merely proof-text the passage, thinking that a mere citation of it proves their point. As I told John Pacheco, Orchard did not not address the Greek text of Romans 11, and thus he was oblivious to the fact that the passage could be saying the very opposite of what he claims it says. Until you offer a commentary that delves into the exegetical issues regarding Romans 11, then citing them really doesn't offer any persuasive evidence.

Mark: Now, granted that the Catholic Encyclopedia, Ott, and Orchard's Commentary have no magisterial authority, it must be admitted that all of these orthodox, pre-Vatican II standard sources seem to treat the "final conversion of Israel" as a given. Why would this be unless there was a considerable consensus of Fathers and Catholic exegetes behind it?

R. Sungenis: Mark, you'll find in many of these proof-texting commentaries the author cites very few if any patristic witness to support the contention. In fact, Ott admits to no such consensus, rather, he says that there is a "question" as to whether "all Israel" refers to a universal conversion.

Mark: The more I search the Fathers, the broader the consensus seems to be. To add to the Augustine and Chrysostom quotes I found earlier, here are a few more:

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob (Preface, X, 20): "After the loss of Job's possessions, after all his bereavements, after all the suffering of his wounds, after all his angry debates, it is good that he is consoled by twofold repayment. In just this way does the holy church, while it is still in this world, receive twofold reward for the trials it sustains, when all the gentile nations have been brought into its midst, at the end of time, and the church converts even the hearts of the Jews to its cause. Thus it is written, 'Until the fulness of nations enters and so all Israel is saved.'"

R. Sungenis: Again, Mark, this is vague at best. First, you'll notice that Gregory does not cite any earlier patristic witness. In order for a massive conversion of Jews at the end of time to be the abiding view of the Church, there would have had to be an apostolic teaching that such was the case. As it stands, none of the early Fathers speak of such a massive conversion in the distant future, let alone say they received such teaching from the apostles.

Second, Gregory offers no exegesis of the crucial phrases in the Romans 11 text (e.g., "fullness of the Gentiles," "so all Israel is saved").

Third, Gregory does not specify a massive conversion of Jews, and thus there is nothing that departs from the stipulation in Romans 11 that a "remnant" of Jews will be saved, either now or in the future.

My contention is that your view actually LIMITS the salvation of the Jews, since your view is so fixated on a mass future conversion that you minimize the salvation of the Jews in the present time and since Pentecost. Your view is that God is not already doing a work among the Jews, but is reserving that for some obscure moment at the end of time. But, as the passages from Luke and other citations show, that is not what the New Testament predicts. All those passages speak of God coming to the Jews at the First Coming of Christ, and that is why 3,000 Jews and Gentiles converted on Pentecost Day, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy that God would send the Redeemer to them from Zion, as I pointed out in Luke 1:68-79. On the other hand, you have no passage, other than your personal interpretation of Romans 11:25-26, to support your claim of a massive conversion in the future, a passage that not even the person you cited (Ott) sees as proof.

Mark: St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa (IV, 26, "Concerning the Antichrist"):

"First, therefore, it is necessary that the Gospel should be preached among all nations: And then shall that wicked one be revealed, even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, whom the Lord shall consume with the word of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming. But Enoch and Elias the Thesbite shall be sent and shall 'turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,' that is, the synagogue to our Lord Jesus Christ and the preaching of the apostles."

R. Sungenis: Again, Mark, there are problems. First, John Damascene is rather late in the patristic record, and thus he offers little evidence of an apostolic precedent for his view. He certainly doesn't cite any patristic witness to back up his claims. Second, you see that he makes the same mistake that Chrysostom made in depending on the LXX translation of Malachi 4:5, referring to Elijah as the "Thesbite," the very same critique that Ott offered to you.

Mark: Now, before going on the Medievals, I have to note that the statements you made regarding the view of the fathers were quite unequivocal. "The consensus among the early Fathers is that there is no divinely mandated future glory for national Israel." I agree that there is no divinely predicted glory for a future state of Israel, but there is assuredly a consensus prediction of the conversion of the Jews. You say, "here are only a few personalities who even address the issue of Israel in the future," and quote seven, adding "only two Fathers hold out for any future large restoration of faith in Israel." This suggests that you have searched long and hard to see what the Fathers have had to say about this topic, and found only a few quotes, mostly arguing against a future conversion.

Yet with just a little bit of searching around, I have found four more quotes you had missed. (Indeed, I found several others, but not as directly pertinent as the ones I have given).

R. Sungenis: Mark, in reality, this is what you have found: (1) two commentators, one of which disagrees with your view of Elijah and reserves a universal conversion of Jews as a "question," while the other commentator offers no exegesis of Romans 11 to support his conclusion. (2) You offered the view of Chrysostom, which as I said in my last view, bases his conclusion on a uninspired translation of Malachi 4:5, as does John Damascene, and both of which go against Jerome's translation. (3) You offered Gregory, but as you can see, he does not offer any patristic support or Scriptural exegesis to back up his view. (4) You offered Augustine, but at best Augustine's view is equivocal, since he says opposite things in different places. Even Augustine does not cite patristic witness to support even his more positive statements, and even his positive statement lends itself to being interpreted in more than one way.

Further, even if I were to accept Augustine, Chrysostom, Gregory and John Damascene as witnesses, this DOES NOT represent a "consensus" of Fathers. A "consensus" of Fathers is the "unanimous consent of the Fathers." It means that, except for a few detractors, ALL the Fathers took the same view. Pope Leo XIII taught in Providentissimus Deus that, unless the Fathers all took the same view, we were not bound to accept them. For example, most of the Fathers took the view that the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angels who had sex with women. Alexander of Alexandria, Chrysostom and Augustine disagreed, and said that it referred to the godly line of Seth. Although in the minority, the view opting for "godly line of Seth" is the one most accepted by the Church today.

Mark: Furthermore, in my own research, I realized that six of the seven quotes you adduce and all the citations are from one source: the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture volume on Romans. This hardly justifies your unequivocal statements about what the Fathers thought on this issue.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9