Covenants, New and Old…
Avant le deluge–that is, the imminent announcement of Obama’s VP pick and the 24/7 run-up to the Dems’ Convention–I was hoping to revisit a theme of Catholic-Jewish relations that has been in the news of late. Mollie Wilson O’Reilly posted earlier about the Vatican reiteration against using “Yahweh” in liturgical songs, as it does not reflect Jewish or early Christian usage, which was in keeping with Jewish tradition against pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, the ancient Hebrew name for God. I was fine with that, as using Yahweh in Christian music strikes me as a somewhat affected appropriation of Jewishness for Christian use. Perhaps it was good to remind us of our Jewish roots. But it seems out of place now.
Of greater interest to me was another bit of news, also listed in CNS’ news briefs, that the bishops were voting “to revise U.S. catechism on Jewish covenant with God.” That’s big stuff. Here’s the CNS report:
WASHINGTON (CNS) — The U.S. bishops have voted to ask the Vatican to approve a small change in the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults to clarify church teaching on God’s covenant with the Jewish people. The proposed change — which would replace one sentence in the catechism — was discussed by the bishops in executive session at their June meeting in Orlando, Fla., but did not receive the needed two-thirds majority of all members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at that time. After mail balloting, the final vote of 231-14, with one abstention, was announced Aug. 5 in a letter to bishops from Msgr. David Malloy, USCCB general secretary. The change, which must be confirmed by the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, would remove from the catechism a sentence that reads: “Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.” Replacing it would be this sentence: “To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his word, ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ’” (Rom 9:4-5; cf. CCC, No. 839).
Interesting. But my main question is: Why do this? What does this mean? It seems that unpacking such sensitive material is inviting trouble, but if it’s an improvement, it’s worth it. What will neophytes (or others) studying the catechism take from this? I’m not sure what I take from this. I liked the “eternally valid” line of the previous version, though the addition of “for them” raises an interesting point of discussion. It sounds like this subsequent language has expanded on that concept in even more interesting ways. But it also seems less clear. Then again, this is a layman’s reaction. Enlightenment welcomed.
David,
To my eyes, perhaps blurred by the heat and humidity of the day, the new version looks not like an “expansion” of the old, but a repudiation of it. There is nothing in the second version that would suggest the sufficiency of the Jewish covenant, nothing that would suggest that it is unnecessary to seek and pray for the conversion of all Jews. The use of the term “belong” is simply weird. It makes all the things named as belonging to the Jews sound like property.
Given this initial reaction, I am most interested in the vote total in favor of the change. If I have interpreted the text correctly, would the highly favorable vote suggest that bishops never really liked having to affirm the sufficiency of the Jewish covenant, and so they are happy to be rid of that teaching?
Joe: I had a similar reaction at first, and thought re-reading it a few times would help. But I just got confused. I still find the new language unsettling (the reference to Jews as a “race” is always loaded, post-Auschwitz), and perhaps your idea about it sounding like property is part of it. I’ve been doing a bit of reading on Paul, and that citation is from Romans, and from a Paul who was more aware of the growing Jewish-Christian (if they could be called that at that time) divide. It’s not the Paul cited by Marcion onwards as un-Jewish or anti-Jewish. Yet today’s world has also changed, and our perceptions and relationships. As for the vote, there are so many bishops who are such strong supporters of Catholic-Jewish dialogue that such a lopsided vote tells me there was no real concern of upsetting Jewish relations. But I remain uncertain as to why the need to change it, and what it means. I am being lazy here, in that I have not called the bishops conference or other sources or done other homework. But it’s August! I suppose Origins will have something eventually.
We have two separate notions here: that the Jewish people, who are in a special relationship with God, have received abundant gifts from him; and that these gifts are irrevocable. It seems as though the current version highlights the irrevocability, whereas the proposed change would emphasize the abundant gifts.
By way of comparison, here is paragraph 839 in the CCC:
839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”[Lumen Gentium 16]
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,[cf Nostrae Aetate 4] “the first to hear the Word of God.”[Roman Missal Good Friday 13, General Intercessions 6] The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,[Romans 9:4-5] “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”[Romans 11:29]”
So it seems that the CCC pulls together the two notions: that to the Jews have been granted the covenants, the law, etc; and that these gifts are irrevocable. But it seems as though the US Catholic Catechism for Adults, as presented here, is substituting one notion for the other. Not having the entire section from the Catechism for Adults, it’s difficult to say whether or not it covers exactly the same ground as the CCC. But it would be nice if, like the CCC, it could hit both points.
(As a comment on what Joe Pettit posted above: in my opinion, the notion of the Jewish covenants’ sufficiency is not addressed, neither in the CCC nor in the portion of the Catechism for Adults presented by David).
Personally, I think it extremely unlikely that the US Bishops would push for a textual change that would chill their relationships with Jewish groups or individuals in their dioceses. Many of the bishops are engaged in dialogue and various forms of practical cooperation. It’s difficult for me to imagine that they’d want to set back all that good work.
Thanks, Jim. Again, operating without the full text, who knows how it all reads. I don’t have that adult catechism. My sense is I’d have preferred a “both/and” solution. But I also realize the needs of editing and space.
I prefer the new wording to the present one. I don’t know that it “clarifies” anything, but it feels less presumptuous — I don’t think it’s a bad idea to step back from making judgments about the “validity” of the Covenant with Israel. And that “for them” does seem to raise more questions than it answers. Given the sensitive subject, sticking with Scripture and letting St. Paul do the talking seems wise… However, I’m not sure I prefer it enough to change it, especially at this moment, so I’d love to know more about why the bishops think it’s important to do so.
It strikes me as funny that the use of “Yahweh” in Christian worship could be simultaneously too Jewish and not Jewish enough! I’ve never thought of it as “appropriation,” but then I’ve always felt Catholics would benefit from being on more familiar terms with our roots in the Old Testament. (I’d like to think that would improve our relations with, or at least our respect for, the Jewish people, too.) Of course, pronouncing the Tetragrammaton may not be an appropriate way to achieve that — but if it’s not, at least as this latest directive states, it’s because it’s not faithful enough to the shared tradition of Christians and Jews.
O.K. With the help of a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, I think I may be seeing a different angle on this. I now think it is an effort explicitly to reject supersessionism, or any of its cousins. That is, there has been no transfer to Christianity of all that is properly a part of, “belongs,” to Judaism. Christianity has in no way replaced Judaism, nor has Judaism in any way forfeited what was once given to it.
Jim: Not sure why you don’t think “eternally valid for them” speaks to the sufficiency of the Jewish covenant(s). I would be grateful for more insight.
Mollie: Not sure I really want scripture speaking on this. The Paul of the letters has a very different relationship to Jews, essentially none, than the Paul of Acts. I tend to find the Paul of the letters to be more historically accurate. Also, going to scripture means going to ALL of scripture, including its most anti-Semitic parts (e.g. John 8:44 where the Jews are referred to as children of the Devil).
Just an aside that has little to do with this thread directly, but is more of an indirect response. In her book From Jesus to Christ, Paula Fredricksen makes an interesting argument about the evolving relationship of Judaism to Christianity and to Paul and apocalypticism. She argues that after about 15 years after the resurrection experience, the church experienced what might be called the problem of the status quo. Things hadn’t changed in ways that either a Messiah or an apocalypse were supposed to produce. Thus, the Christians were facing a credibility crisis. Additionally, apocalyptic movements were being heavily persecuted by the Romans. Fredricksen argues that the majority Christian response was to re-Judaize Christianity; that is, emphasize its continuity with and place within Judaism proper. Because of the persecutions by Rome, Jewish communities came to resist those with apocalyptic, not simply Christian, messages. Paul becomes the one who then goes off message with both the Christians and the Jews. He is persecuted by some Christians because he has rejected central tenets of Judaism, and he is persecuted by Jews because he is preaching an apocalyptic message.
Of course, everything changes with the destruction of the Temple in 70. Now, Judaism of all varieties is on the outs, and Christianity scores points by showing how it is actually very different from Judaism. Luke and John take full advantage of this.
Sorry for the random reflection. I find it to be a fascinating argument.
“Jim: Not sure why you don’t think “eternally valid for them” speaks to the sufficiency of the Jewish covenant(s). I would be grateful for more insight.”
Hi, Joe, I just mean it in the sense that validity doesn’t really imply sufficiency – it says nothing about sufficiency either way.
I like your analysis about supercessionism.
Joe P: I like the Paul and Pale Ale combo. Good disquistion. I too like your ale-inflected reading of the passage. And I suspect the bishops, committed as they are to Jewish dialogue, wanted that stressed. Of course, being the bloody-minded sort I am, I now wonder if in citing Paul the passage could be read as ceding so much to Judaism that one might wonder why we should preach Christ at all. No good way out. It’s our (dual) nature.
“I now wonder if in citing Paul the passage could be read as ceding so much to Judaism that one might wonder why we should preach Christ at all. No good way out. It’s our (dual) nature.”
David: Glad you found merit in my ale-egesis. As for your above quote, I am not sure what to make of the last two sentences, but as for why preach Christ, I think there is a low church and a high church answer. The low church answer sees Jesus as articulating a specific and compelling interpretation of Judaism but also sees itself as continuous with those communities that affirmed the resurrection, and so found something specially unique in Jesus. Over time, these communities also developed rituals and holy days unique to the tradition of Jesus, and in doing so dropped important Jewish rituals and holy days, and so became clearly distinct from Judaism. Many versions of liberal Protestantism take this low church route (although there are certainly more high church Protestants than low church). I would count myself within this low church tradition. The high church answer includes much of the low church answer but also affirms that in some way Jesus perfects the salvation history in which the Jews have and continue to participate. Here Christianity does not supersede Judaism, but it does, somehow, pefect what Judaism offers to the world. I think both these positions can be affirmed without also affirming supersessionism, but I think the vast majority of the history of Christianity has affirmed the high church position along with supersessionsism.
The difficulty that I have with the high church position is that I have never quite figured out in what way Jesus can be said to perfect the salvation history found in Judaism. I would value any suggestions in this regard.
Jim: I guess the question is”Sufficient for what?” I take the affirmation of the validity of the Jewish covenant with God to mean that nothing more need be added to Judaism for Jews to have the hope of salvation, whatever that might mean.
“To the Jewish people belong the sonship, the glory…”
Maybe I am missing something, but the quote from Romans seems far stronger than the earlier version. Think of the father’s words to the prodigal’s brother: “You are always with me and all that I have is yours.” This is far more respectful, comforting, etc. than if he had said “We had a deal, and it is eternally valid, Mom always liked him best.”
As to converting the Jews, note that it now says that God chose the Jewish people to hear his word first. The Word of God is Jesus, which minimizes the need to convert the Jews; they were the first to hear that word.
As to the tetragrammaton, recall that it was generally replaced by “Lord” in the reading of scripture. The early Christian affirmations, “Jesus is Lord” and “the Spirit is Lord” take on a different meaning in that context, probably laying the foundation for the recognition of Jesus and the Spirit as divine.
Jim McK: Very nice appeal to the story of the prodigal son.
To all: Obviously, each of us recoils in horror when considering the history of anti-Semitism. However, in light of this conversation, I cannot help but wonder two things: 1) The most obvious question of how the history of the Jews would have been different over the last two thousand years if the above statement had been the consistent position of the churches; and 2) less obvious, but no less important, how would Christianity have looked different if this had been the consistent position of the churches, its leaders and theologians, and its followers. I fail to see how the gospel of John, at least, makes it into the Canon if the above conviction is in place.
Here is the ugly question: To what extent did Christianity NEED anti-Semitism to become the religion that it is?
Theological ramifications aside, the real question is why the Conference would release the text of a “proposed” change. Wouldn’t prudence dictate silence until a response was received from the Holy See?
Juicy question, Joe: The easy answer is that it didn’t. But obviously the separation was made, and became necessary. Couple of thoughts: Should we speak rather of anti-Judaism, as the conception of a Semitic “race” is a modern one? And was the attitude of many (most?) Gentile Christians (and Jewish Christians) that they were the true Israel? So rather than an “anti” Judaism or Semitism, it was an internal battle to claim the father’s favor, to reference the Prodigal Son parable again. Now which community represents which son? There’s another question…
Clearly, Christianity was driven by persecution, and the Roman persecution gave the church its martyrs and identity. But more to your point, I think, in latter centuries, when Christ became Caesar, so to speak, Christianity kept the “persecution complex” too often. I think that goes to the heart of one of our problems today: So many see the church, or their corner of the church, as under seige, as reliving those pagan times. And yet Christianity is dominant, however flawed its followers. So you have the biggest kid in the playground complaining of being picked on. And it’s no longer Jews or Romans or pagans he’s complaining about, but his own friends, or erstwhile friends. So we’re back to the first century perhaps–internecine fighting that leads…?
I’m picking up on Joe’s point, earlier.
I am afraid I don’t understand the edict against pronouncing Yahweh. It’s true that it was forbidden in Judaism–an offense against God, an impermissible violation of the distance between God and humanity.
But so is the very idea of an incarnate God–and the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth is not merely a messiah, not merely the Messiah, but also, God incarnate. The coming of Jesus radically revised our understanding of Yahweh: A God who allows himself to be incarnate in a baby has a very different sense of purity laws, as St. Paul recognized.
So why stop here?
P.S. This is really, “I don’t understand.” I am afraid I can’t get really worked up over the liturgical wars. And I can live without singing ‘Yahweh, I know you are Near.” Especially since I can’t sing anyway.
Just a guess, but perhaps there was a sense that “for them” implied that there was no reason for Jews to convert to Christ. This might have led to the proposal to substitute the words from Romans as being complimentary, especially out of their context. But why not just cut “for them”?
The issue is the Jewishness of Jesus. That’s where the Romans’ quote ends. That’s what’s absent from the first quote. The covenant is a red herring.
Of course I’m just making a deduction here. Why doesn’t the conference explain it? It’s necessary for them to do so, if it’s to affect the Catechism. Is the statement explaining it still in preparation?
My eye has fallen upon a CNS summary in Catholic New York. It is rather as I had suspected. There was a fear that the earlier language might be mnisunderstood as implying that “one of the former covenants imparts salvation without the mediation of Christ, whom Christians believe to be the universal savior of all people.”
“Christ, whom Christians believe to be the universal savior of all people.”
Pitty that few if any of those Christians can explain what that means.
One might pose this question. If the old wording was able to be misinterpreted, sure it was also able to be interpreted aright. The news report emphasized that not change in teaching was involved. What, then, was the right interpretation? The proposed change, or rather substitution, looks like a ploy to avoid answering that question. One is tempted to say that the practitioners of denial and evasion we have always with us.
The First Things article of the day has an interesting reflection on Torah, Jews and Christians.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1148
Here is a portion:
“Especially since the Holocaust, there has been a huge change among biblical scholars toward recognizing that Jesus remains forever a Jew. Jesus is a Jew not only in some accidental cultural-ethnic sense, but also programmatically and eschatologically. In Jesus “something greater than the Temple is here” (Matt. 12:6, Heb. 12:18-29), as Torah finds its heart in the Incarnate Word. Jesus of Nazareth was a Torah-observant Jew; he challenges other Jews with the extravagance of God’s grace, but he never repudiates Torah as such. Neither Jesus nor Paul understood the gospel to be a religious system in opposition to Torah-Judaism as a religious system.
“Yet, as Christians have begun to value Judaism more respectfully, we often remain committed to a view of Torah-observance as obviated by the work of Christ. Against such a view, the critical difference between (non-Christian) Judaism and Christianity is Christological, not moral. For Paul, as E. P. Sanders put it in Paul and Palestinian Judaism, “what is wrong with the law is that it is not Christ.” Paul did not cease to be a Jew when he became an apostle of Jesus Christ, nor did Paul ever cease looking to biblical Torah for rules of Christian conduct. Too often, those who accuse others (whether Jews, Catholics, or Puritans) of legalism—of claiming that strict Torah-observance validates the Covenant relationship—do so because they themselves are reducing Christ’s role to that of moral example, teacher, and enabler. Overwhelmingly, both Jewish and Christian normative texts recognize that Torah-observance has meaning, but only and precisely inside the covenant relationship freely given by God. Both Judaism and Christianity intend to practice covenantal nomism. Moreover, New Testament moral instruction is unintelligible apart from a Christian aspiration to obey the universal aspects of biblical Torah.
“Paul does say some shockingly critical things about Torah observance. Paul is concerned to make absolutely clear that even Torah, divinely-inspired religion at its very best, cannot give us a relationship with God. The only way to have a meaningful relationship with God is to place all our confidence in Jesus Christ. …”
Jim – you make some good points. The respect and appreciation for Jesus as Jewish is strongly reinforced by the work of the exegetes that make up the Jesus Seminar especially Mark Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Geza Vermes.
I had Crossan at DePaul – some question his exegesis (Luke Timothy Johnson comes to mind) but his works are foundational.
Geza Vermes (must be close to 90 years old) was an ordained member of a small religious community in Paris whose purpose was to build better relationships between church and Jewish religion and to help educate Catholics about the Jewish contribution to our faith. He later left the priesthood, married, and then years later went back to being Jewish (which is what his early life was).
Given all of this focus on trying to be respectful of Jewish feelings, I can’t help remember in March and April when B16 allowed the wider use of the extraordinary use of the Paul VI Missal and Latin Mass – a few months ago people were outraged because the “old” Good Friday language was retained which many Jewish folks objected to. Yet, now the USCCB is moving even further along the road in the other direction. Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?
Bill — It’s not exactly that the original Good Friday petition was retained — Benedict approved a change, but only to a certain extent. They made it less offensive, but it still doesn’t match the one we pray in the ordinary form of the liturgy; it prays directly for the Jews’ conversion while the “updated” one is a more general prayer of goodwill. So to me, this move seems in keeping with that one, in that the act of making a change may create more questions than it answers. And I think it’s a move in the same direction, too, away from stating (or appearing to state) that Jewish people need not accept Christ to be saved.