R. Sungenis 3: What you "accept" and what the text demands are apparently two different things. The text says "all Israel," not some. If, as is the case, you see "all Israel" and figure that this must be something more than a remnant, then by what authority do you then retreat from the meaning of "all" that brought you beyond a remnant and then adopt a view that is somewhere between a remnant and all?? You see, Mark, you want your cake and eat it, too. You want to dismiss the remnant idea because you see the word "all," but when someone presses you to take "all" to mean "all," you suddenly develop an aversion and declare that "all" really doesn't mean "all." As for "large scale conversions of whole nations," perhaps you can give me an example rather than just making an assertion. I personally don't know of any. In any case, it never happened in Israel, not even in their glory days.

Mark 3: Furthermore, in the case of the Jews, we have the testimony that their hearts have been specially hardened by God. This leaves open the possibility that he could later soften their hearts so that they could recognize the Messiah they had missed. Elijah's preaching may be the proximate cause of this conversion, which may be accompanied by a traumatic event, such as the persecutions of Antichrist leading many Jews to suddenly recognize who the real Christ was.

R. Sungenis 3: Romans 11:23 says that the hardening will cease when Israel stops their disbelief, not when God performs some kind of miraculous conversion. The only action God does is grafting them in again once they've turned to Him.

Mark 3: Now, I agree that there is no single, infallible interpretation of prophecy. I would also agree that there are ambiguities about this prophecy. (e.g. Will the conversion be accompanied by the return of Elijah? Will Elijah be accompanied by Enoch or Moses? Will all remaining Jews convert, or simply a sizeable "remnant of Israel"). If you accept my qualifications of this teaching, I hope that you will accept that the belief in a future conversion of the Jews as a sign of the end times is a common teaching well established in the tradition. I will agree with you that this teaching is not infallible and not entirely clear, if you will agree with me that the future conversion of the Jews was widely taught by the Fathers, the medievals, and later scholars.

R. Sungenis 3: I will agree that some type of conversion of the Jews was taught by some Fathers and some medievals, beyond that I offer you no qualifiers, since the testimony is much too equivocal and the conclusions much too varied.

Mark 3: The belief that in the end a "remnant will be saved" is one of the factors that has led many Popes to teach at least tolerance and respect for the Jews. The other factor is St. Augustine's theology of Jewish witness -- that the Jewish people continue to exist in order to testify by their existence, by their traditions, and by their Scriptures, to the truth of Christianity. If you are game to continue this conversation, I would like to suggest that Augustine's theology of witness, rightly understood and stripped of medieval polemicism, can still be a useful way to understand the roles of Christianity and Judaism, and why we should respect the continuing presence of Judaism as being part of God's plan, even if we do not believe that the Jewish covenant can save.

R. Sungenis 3: I agree with Augustine about why the Jews are still with us, but if you really want some "polemics" against the Jews as a race of people against Christianity, Mark, then you ought to read some of Augustine's statements against the Jews. He certainly would not have agreed with your insistence that Judaism is somehow beneficial for Christianity. The same type of "polemics" were in the Fathers' testimony about the Jews as was in the Middle Age theologians, for that is where they got it. I suggest you stop trying to make room for Judaism, Mark, for if you continue this line of thinking, you might someday be forced to accept "all" that Judaism has taught, including their repudiation of Jesus Christ that survives intact in their views to this present day. Until if and when Judaism repudiates their denial of the divinity and messiahship of Jesus Christ, I want little to do with them. If somehow you think that placating them with overtures toward the validity of Judaism is somehow going to soften them up, you are only fooling yourself. That is not the way the gospel is to be preached. The model is in Acts 3:12-26.

--------------------- Mark: Robert, Thanks for your latest reply. I will reply later in more detail, but not in as many thousands of words as we have used so far, as I think we are down to only a few issues.

For you, the sticking point seems to be whether Rom. 11:25-26 teaches a universal conversion of the Jews, for me it is whether it teaches a future, end times conversion of the Jews.

RS: That is one sticky point. The one related to that is that those who interpert Rom 11:25-26 as a future conversion, NEVER deal with the context of the passage, and if on occassion they do, they misinterpret it (e.g., the connection between 11:14 and 11:15; that God has already fulfilled his promise by saving a remnant; that Jews must themselves cease their unbelief; that "until" does not necessarily mean "cease"; etc). The other is that there are precious few Fathers that deal with the issue, and those that do have different interpretations, as do the Medievals. Considering all these things, the minute someone says to me, "The Catholic Church teaches that there will be a future conversion of Israel," I'll tell them they are wrong. It is merely one idea that some in the Catholic Church held.

I believe (based on the plain sense of the text and the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors) that this text is speaking of a future conversion of the Jews. But I do not necessarily think that "all Israel" means each and every Jew, any more than "all have sinned" in Romans 3:23 implies that the Blessed Virgin Mary has sinned, or that when Matthew 2:3 reports that "all Jerusalem" was troubled along with Herod by the magi's report of a star indicating a new King, that this means that each and every person in Jerusalem heard the magi's story and were worried by it (many wouldn't have heard about the magi's visit, and some would have been overjoyed by the birth of a new king - e.g. Simeon and Anna).

RS: The meaning of "all" you are pointing out in the above verses refers to EXCEPTIONS to the overwhelming majority. Mary was a mere exception to the "all" of Romans 3:23, and Simeon and Anna were exceptions to the "all Jerusalem" of Matthew 2:3. So unless you prepared to say that there will only be one or two exceptions to a future conversion of "all Israel," then your attempt at lessening the meaning of "all" simply will not wash.

Also, I find it interesting again that you are now trying to support your argument by a "technical" exegesis of Scripture -- the very thing you tried to fault me in your last post.

Mark: Anyhow, for me, the key issue is the futurity of a national conversion of the Jews, not its universality. "All Israel" may merely -mean a large,representative group of the Jewish nation.

RS: At this point, Mark, I'm not interested in "may means." You can't engage in such speculation and then be so dogmatic about its eventuality. Moreover, if you are positing a "national" conversion, then I think you've departed from about 90% of the Fathers before you, as well as Aquinas who sees a spiritual "universal" conversion, and Martin V who only sees a "remnant." This Heinz 57 variety of options is precisely why I am so adamant against those who teach that there is no question of a future conversion of Israel.

Mark: On one other issue, when I suggested that Ott, writing in Germany in 1952, was less likely to look for a symbolic fulfillment of the text than Lapide in the 16th century, I had no intention of implying that Ott was influenced by anti-semitism or Naziism. What I was implying was that he may have been influenced (even mildly and unconsciously) by over a century of German Protestant modernist Biblical exegesis (Schleiermacher, Bultmann, etc.) to accept some of their rationalist critique of Scripture.

RS: Fr. Raymond Brown, Fr. Karl Rahner, et al, were influenced by German Protestant exegesis, but Ott certainly wasn't. He's about as orthodox as they come.

-----------------

Dialogue with Mike: Bob,

There is some interesting and good information in this article that I hadn't come across before. However, there are a few things that struck me. I'll throw them by you. Some relate to current/secular Israel (and I'm not saying I'm a supporter of Zionism at all by this, just that some questions came to mind that I think others who ARE would likely ask), and some relate to the issue of a "future spiritual restoration" of God's "firstborn" (and in relation to this aspect, I do still tend to disagree with you):

1) (The first 4 relate mostly to the physical/land aspects of "restoration") What is the import of the opinion of Orthodox Jews in relation to eschatological matters or any theological matters, really? They are not the bearers of prophecy any longer, orthodox, conservative, reform or other.

2) Why must one pit Divine action against seemingly "natural" or "secular" action in relation to the restoration of Israel as a nation? As we has discussed before in relation to "miracles" etc, there is no necessary contradiction between the two (naturalistic/miraculous). And just as we see in the "messy" and often political dealings within the Church Herself, binding and infallible teachings can even come from such places, so there is no intrinsic incompatibility.

3) The article says that God's promise to Abraham and his descendents will be "fulfilled in eternity". Doesn't Catholic theology posit that eternity is not disconnected from our time, but is rather something that is breaking into the temporal realm more and more completely since the first coming of Christ? Eternity is not something "in the future", but something that already "exists" and can be "experienced", even now in our human condition.

4) There are several Scriptural passages that strike me:

1) Jer 16:14-18, 2) Jer 27:22, 3) Jer 32:42-33, 4) Ezek 39:26-27. How do these fit into your interpretation (in regard to a physical restoration)? I'm not sure of the time line.

5) (From here on, my points relate more to the spiritual restoration)... The apostle John (John 19:37) quotes from part of Zecharia 12:10-13. Only the first part "looking on him whom they pierced through" has occurred, to my knowledge. When do you believe, exactly, that the house of David, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the family of Nathan, the family of the house of Levi, the family of Shemei etc, "mourned for" Christ "as one mourns for an only son," and "grieved over him as one grieves over a first born"? And in the context as you frame it (in regard to what Israel is and is not in prophecy), how is it possible for this to occur?

6) You wrote: "The traditional Catholic position has essentially been that the promises made to the Jewish people have been literally fulfilled in the person of Christ and in the Catholic Church, and that to look for physical fulfillment is to miss what separates the New from the Old Testament." I would like to see the documentation for this, that it is really one and absolutely NOT the other (and either/or) and that the approach of "both/and" is excluded (i.e. "Israel" is correctly and prophetically dealt with both on the spiritual level AND on a more physical level to at least some degree). If it is, then it would seem that Jerome, Cyril, Chrysostom (see my quotes below), Augustine (I have a couple of quotes below), Ott, and even the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia must have completely missed this clear position. Is it really that established and clear at all?

7) There are other quotes from the fathers and even Aquinas, Ott, and the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia (not some Kasperian/VII invention) that were not mentioned (and which support the idea of some kind of unusual action of regrafting in the future).

a) Aquinas, in examining a number of alternative interpretations of the phrase "resurrection of the dead" (Rom 11), settles on the following: "What, I say, will such an admission effectuate, if not that it bring the Gentiles back to life? The Gentiles would be the believers whose faith has grown cold, or even that the totality, deceived by the Antichrist, fall and are restored to their pristine fervor by the admission of the Jews." (Comm. Ep. to the Rom. 11:15)

b) The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say: "(B) Universal and Cosmic Eschatology.- 6) Notwhithstanding Christ's express refusal to specify the time of the end (Mrak xiii, 32, Acts i, 6 sq) it was a common belief among early Christians that the end of the world was near. This seemed to have some support in certain sayings of Christ in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, which are set down in the Gospels side by side with the prophecies relating to the end (Matt 24, Luke 21), and in certain passages of the Apostolic writings, which might, not unnaturally, have been so understood (but see II Thes, ii, s2 sqq) where St. Paul corrects this impression.) On the other hand, Christ had clearly stated that the Gospel was to be preached to all the nations before the end (Matt 24:14) and St. Paul looked forward to the ultimate conversion of the Jewish people as a remote event to be preceded by the conversion of the Gentiles (Rom xi, 25 sqq).

c) Augustine, NPNF, Vol 8, pages 345-346, #10 talks about a restoration of OT Israel (comparing it with the account of Moses and his hand being white, leperous, then restored to health after being drawn back to his breast) and pages 438-439, #10: "After these stern penalties which have been recorded as having been inflicted upon this people and kingdom (Israel), that God might not be supposed to have fulfilled His promises in it, and so not to grant another kingdom in Christ, of which kingdom there shall be no end, the prophet addresses Him in these words, 'Lord, how long wilt Thou hid Thyself unto the end?' (v 46). For possibly it was not from them and to the end; because 'blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gneitles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved.' but in the mean while 'shall Thy wrath burn like fire.'"

d) Chrysostom NPNF Vol 11, page 489, vese 12): "Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulness?...' For if when they stumbled, he says, so many enjoyed salvation, and when they were case out so many were called, just consider what will be the case when they return. ....Now, he does not say, 'how much more their'return, or their altering, or their well-doing, but 'how much more their fulness', that is, when they are all about coming in."

e) Chrysostom NPNF Vol 11, page 490, Ver 15: "'For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?' ....But see also even in his favors to them, how he solaces them in words only. 'For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world,' (and what is this to the Jews?) 'what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?' Yet even this was no boon to them, unless they had been received. But what he means is to this effect: If in anger with them He gave other men so great gifts, when He is reconciled to them what will He not give?'" Clearly, Chrysostom seems to be talking about "them", as a group. Otherwise the sentence doesn't make sense. Notice also that Chyrsostom says, "WHEN", not "IF".

f) Chysostom: (Homily on Ep. to the Rom, chap 11): "Seeing the Gentiles abusing little by little their grace, God will recall a second time the Jews."

g) Jerome: (Comm. to the Song of Songs, Homily 1) : "Their sins occasioned the salvation of the Gentiles and again the incredulity of the Gentiles will occasion the conversion of Israel. You will find both in the Apostle (St. Paul)."

You know the quote from Ludwig Ott that clearly conveys the expectation of a future restoration, but you somewhat dismiss/discount it because you don't think much of his exegesis or focus thereon. Yet, I still maintain that it is still noteworthy.....especially as the article claims, that such a position is so clearly not in line with the historical teaching of the Church.

8) Luke 13:34-35: "I tell you (speaking to the inhabitants of Jerusalem), you will not see me until the time comes when you say, 'blessings be on him who comes in the name of the Lord.'" This cannot, IMO, be the heavenly Jerusalem, in this context, it would make no sense.

9) Luke 21:24....."Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

BTW.......I sent many of these to you in March of 2002. So they may look familiar. You never responded to them at that time.

Mike 1) (The first 4 relate mostly to the physical/land aspects of "restoration") What is the import of the opinion of Orthodox Jews in relation to eschatological matters or any theological matters, really? They are not the bearers of prophecy any longer, orthodox, conservative, reform or other.

RS: I didn't write that part of the article.

Mike: Why must one pit Divine action against seemingly "natural" or "secular" action in relation to the restoration of Israel as a nation? As we has discussed before in relation to "miracles" etc, there is no necessary contradiction between the two naturalistic/miraculous). And just as we see in the "messy" and often political dealings within the Church Herself, binding and infallible teachings can even come from such places, so there is no intrinsic incompatibility.

RS: Because there is no "secular" or "natural" action promised in Scripture. They have already been fulfilled, and Israel's time is over. If they are saved, they join the Church. That is the only "natural" place God is dealing with.

Mike: 3) The article says that God's promise to Abraham and his descendents will be "fulfilled in eternity". Doesn't Catholic theology posit that eternity is not disconnected from our time, but is rather something that is breaking into the temporal realm more and more completely since the first coming of Christ? Eternity is not something "in the future", but something that already "exists" and can be "experienced", even now in our human condition.

RS: I don't know any Catholic dogmatic teaching that says that, Mike. The dogma is clear that this world will end at the last day, Judgment Day, and then the eternal state will come. That is why Abraham is still waiting for his land, according to Heb 11.

Mike: 4) There are several Scriptural passages that strike me: 1) Jer 16:14-18, 2) Jer 27:22, 3) Jer 32:42-33, 4) Ezek 39:26-27. How do these fit into your interpretation (in regard to a physical restoration)? I'm not sure of the time line.

RS: They were all fulfilled in the return from captivity in Babylon. The books of Nehemiah, Ezra, et al, are very detailed about that. The only one that might have an application to the distant future is Ezek 39, since it follows the reference to Gog and Magog in Ezek 38, which relates to Apoc 11 and 20.

Mike: 5) (From here on, my points relate more to the spiritual restoration)... The apostle John (John 19:37) quotes from part of Zecharia 12:10-13. Only the first part "looking on him whom they pierced through" has occurred, to my knowledge. When do you believe, exactly, that the house of David, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the family of Nathan, the family of the house of Levi, the family of Shemei etc, "mourned for" Christ "as one mourns for an only son," and "grieved over him as one grieves over a first born"? And in the context as you frame it (in regard to what Israel is and is not in prophecy), how is it possible for this to occur?

RS: It occurred right after their "looking on him whom they pierced," since Pentecost was a fulfillment of all the prophecies of God's spirtual restoration of Israel. That is why Acts 2 quotes from Joel's prophecy about God "pouring out His Spirit," the same "pouring out" of the Spirit mentioned in Zech 12:10. It is why Acts 15:16-18 quotes from Amos 9 regarding the "rebuilding of the tabernacle of David," which relates directly to the "house of David" in Zech 12:10-12. There is more I could give.

Mike: 6) You wrote:

"The traditional Catholic position has essentially been that the promises made to the Jewish people have been literally fulfilled in the person of Christ and in the Catholic Church, and that to look for physical fulfillment is to miss what separates the New from the Old Testament." I would like to see the documentation for this, that it is really one and absolutely NOT the other (and either/or) and that the approach of "both/and" is excluded (i.e. "Israel" is correctly and prophetically dealt with both on the spiritual level AND on a more physical level to at least some degree). If it is, then it would seem that Jerome, Cyril, Chrysostom (see my quotes below), Augustine (I have a couple of quotes below), Ott, and even the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia must have completely missed this clear position. Is it really that established and clear at all?

RS: There are a few Fathers that looked for some ethnic or physical blessing, but by and large, the Fathers are very divided on this issue, and there really is no consensus among them. They waffle back and forth between a remnant and a larger group; and they waffle back and forth between a spiritual and ethnic restoration. Cyril and Jerome are more adamant. Augustine has several views, as does Chrysostom. As for Ott, he questions a "morally universal conversion of the Jews," and says that the view of Elijah returning to preach to the Jews is erroneous. The CE just makes a statement with no exegesis or patristic consensus.

Mike: 7) There are other quotes from the fathers and even Aquinas, Ott, and the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia (not some Kasperian/VII invention) that were not mentioned (and which support the idea of some kind of unusual action of regrafting in the future). a) Aquinas, in examining a number of alternative interpretations of the phrase "resurrection of the dead" (Rom 11), settles on the following: "What, I say, will such an admission effectuate, if not that it bring the Gentiles back to life? The Gentiles would be the believers whose faith has grown cold, or even that the totality, deceived by the Antichrist, fall and are restored to their pristine fervor by the admission of the Jews." (Comm. Ep. to the Rom. 11:15)

RS: I believe he is wrong. Aquinas, as opposed to the Fathers, was the first one who used the word "universal" in reference to Jewish conversion. His view is unprecedented, and his exegesis of Romans 11:15 is faulty. Rom 11:14 speaks of "some" of the Jews being saved by Paul in his day. Rom 11:15 follows this and says, "FOR....their acceptance is life from the dead." Hence, the conversion of "some" Jews, from the time of Paul to our day, IS the resurrection from the dead. There is not some future resurrection that Paul refers to.

Mike: b) The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say: "(B) Universal and Cosmic Eschatology.- 6) notwhithstanding Christ's express refusal to specify the time of the end (Mrak xiii, 32, Acts i, 6 sq) it was a common belief among early Christians that the end of the world was near. This seemed to have some support in certain saying of Christ in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, whjich are set down in the Gospels side by side with the prophecies relating to the end (Matt 24, Luke 21), and in certain passages of the Apostolic writings, which might, not unnaturally, have been so understood (but see II Thes, ii, s2 sqq) where St. Paul corrects this impression.) On the other hand, Christ had clearly stated that the Gospel was to be preached to all the nations befor eht eend (Matt 24:14) and St. Paul looked forward to the ultimate conversion of the Jewish people as a remote event to be preceded by the conversion of the Gentiles (Rom xi, 25 sqq).

RS: As I said above, merely prooftexting Romans 11:25-26, without any exegesis or patristic consensus, can hardly serve as a convincing argument.

Mike: c) Augustine, NPNF, Vol 8, pages 345-346, #10 talks about a restoration of OT Israel (comparing it with the account of Moses and his hand being white, leperous, then restored to health after being drawn back to his breast) and pages 438-439, #10: "After these stern penalties which have been recorded as having been inflicted upon this people and kingdom (Israel), that God might not be supposed to have fulfilled His promises in it, and so not to grant another kingdom in Christ, of which kingdom there shall be no end, the prophet addresses Him in these words, 'Lord, how long wilt Thou hid Thyself unto the end?' (v 46). For possibly it was not from them and to the end; because 'blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gneitles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved.' but in the mean while 'shall Thy wrath burn like fire.'"

RS: Again, Augustine is equivocal, as he is in many places. Above he says "For POSSIBLY is was not from them and to the end." He is showing you that he is not sure.

Mike: d) Chrysostom NPNF Vol 11, page 489, vese 12): "Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulness?...' For if when they stumbled, he says, so many enjoyed salvation, and when they were case out so many were called, just consider what will be the case when they return. ....Now, he does not say, 'how much more their'return, or their altering, or their well-doing, but 'how much more their fulness', that is, when they are all about coming in."

RS: Since Chrysostom is basing this on his personal exegesis of the text, and not on some patristic consensus he inherited, then we can argue on the basis of his exegesis. As it stands, his exegesis is faulty, since he is reading into the passage things that are not definitive.

Mike: f) Chrysostom NPNF Vol 11, page 490, Ver 15: "'For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?' ...But see also even in his favors to them, how he solaces them in words only. 'For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world,' (and what is this to the Jews?) 'what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?' Yet even this was no boon to them, unless they had been received. But what he means is to this effect: If in anger with them He gave other men so great gifts, when He is reconciled to them what will He not give?'" Clearly, Chrysostom seems to be talking about "them", as a group. Otherwise the sentence doesn't make sense. Notice also that Chyrsostom says, "WHEN", not "IF".

RS: Chrysostom is making the same mistake with Romans 11:14-15, since he's missed that the "some" is the fulfillment of life from the dead. And again, we can argue this point, since Chrysostom is basing his view on the interpretation of the text, not on an apostolic or patristic consensus.

Mike: g) Chysostom: (Homily on Ep. to the Rom, chap 11): "Seeing the Gentiles abusing little by little their grace, God will recall a second time the Jews." h) Jerome: (Comm. to the Song of Songs, Homily 1) : "Their sins occasioned the salvation of the Gentiles and again the incredulity of the Gentiles will occasion the conversion of Israel. You will find both in the Apostle (St. Paul)."

RS: Nothing definitive about this, and there is certainly no exegesis involved. As for Chrysostom, nowhere does Romans 11 speak about God recalling the Jews "a second time."

Mike: You know the quote from Ludwig Ott that clearly conveys the expectation of a future restoration, but you somewhat dismiss/discount it because you don't think much of his exegesis or focus thereon. Yet, I still maintain that it is still noteworthy.....especially as the article claims, that such a position is so clearly not in line with the historical teaching of the Church.

RS: No, I don't dismiss it at all. In fact, I use Ott as support of my position on this issue.

Mike: 8) Luke 13:34-35:

"I tell you (speaking to the inhabitants of Jerusalem), you will not see me until the time comes when you say, 'blessings be on him who comes in the name of the Lord.'" This cannot, IMO, be the heavenly Jerusalem, in this context, it would make no sense.

The verse is not definitive of any particular time, so it supports neither of us. Paul's answer to Mt 23:39's subjunctive mood ("until you say") is outlined in Rm 10:18-11:14 by references to the "remnant" or "some" of Israel who will turn to Christ, which, as the book of Acts records, is in process of fulfillment (cf., Ac 2:1-3:26; 15:16-18). By use of the subjunctive mood, the verse is not saying that the Jews WILL say "blessed is he...." but that they won't see him "until" if and when they do.

9) Luke 21-24.

BTW.......I sent many of these to you in March of 2002. So they may look familiar. You never responded to them at that time.

RS: Mike, I can safely say that I don't see one passage in the NT that speaks difinitively of a ethnic, physical or national restoration of the Jews. All I see is a spiritual working in a remnant of Jews until the end of time. If I am missing something, I'll gladly be corrected, but I don't see any proof of that in what you presented.

----------------- End of Dialogues

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9