What do Catholics believe about the relationship
of the Jewish people to the salvation of Jesus?
Are Catholics into Replacement Theology?

Lately, I've been getting a lot of correspondence about the Jewish people and their relationship to the Church. There has been a lot of discussion around Replacement Theology. This is partially because of the crisis in the middle east and the threats of Iran to destroy Israel. The question of the role of the Jewish people in the end times is a hot topic between denominations and also within the Catholic Church. It is a profound mystery and I will not attempt to solve it all in one article. However, I will try to sort out some misconceptions and outline the current Catholic Church position. I will discuss Messianic Jews (new denominations of born again Jewish Christians) and outline why the Catholic Church pays attention to Greek philosophy when some Evangelicals say that it waters down the Jewish foundation of Christianity.

Continuum of positions in the Evangelical world

There are conflicting views among Protestants over the Jewish people in God's salvation. On one hand we find Protestants into Millennialism, saying that Jesus will come back to earth for literally 1000 year reign and establish a kingdom based in the modern day state of Israel.

On the other hand, Protestant Replacement Theology says that Christianity of the New Covenant totally replaced Judaism of the Old Covenant. They believe Jewish individuals who surrender to Jesus will be saved but they assert that there is nothing special going on between God and modern Judaism.

Millennilists are very "into" modern day Israel and they believe the Jews have a very important role in the end times. They foresee a huge mass conversion of the Jewish people. On the other hand "replacement theology" says there is nothing special about non-Christian Jews of today, they are like everyone else (the Gentiles).

Catholics would say there are elements of truth at both ends of the Protestant continuum. We agree with Millennialists that there will be a huge conversion of Jews in the end times and we agree with Replacement Theology proponents when they say that the new Israel after the resurrection of Christ, is the Church, not modern day Israel. Of course, we have major differences with some of the teachings in both these camps also. However, in contrast with Replacement Theology, Catholics believe there is still something particularly special about the modern day Jewish people, although the characteristics of that "specialness" are still under discussion among Catholic theologians. (more about that later) We think Millennialists are mistaken when they say Jesus will have a literal 1000 year reign as a king of an actual earthly empire in historic Israel. We believe that the Bible is clear that the New Jerusalem is bride of Christ which is the Church (Rev 19:8), and that the Kingdom of God is "not of this world." (Jn 18:36) We would say the "New Israel" spoken about in Scripture is not modern Israel, it is Christianity.

The Catholic view of the Jewish people in the economy of God's Salvation

The Bible says:

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Romans 2:28, 29)

The true Israel is not Israel "in the flesh" (i.e., ethnic Judaism) but Israel in the spirit. There is a constant theme in the Bible that the elder son will be replaced by the younger son as the true heir of God's promises. When Cain (the eldest) killed Abel, the legitimate descent from Adam was transferred to the descendents of the younger son. The same was true of Ishmael and Isaac, and Esau and Jacob. We also see it with the first kings of Israel where Saul and his son Jonathan were replaced by David and his descendents. And so it is not surprising that Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and the apostles (Mat 16:18), thereby giving the keys of old covenant to the people who follow Jesus (Israel of the new covenant). The New Israel are those who follow Jesus. Jesus is God and he had the authority to do this.

The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is completely dependant on the New Covenant as its source of power just as the Old Testament idea of "One God" is completely dependant on the reality of the Trinity found in the New Testament. Saint Paul says that the Old Covenant is obsolete but he does not say that it has been revoked. The problem with modern day Judaism is that it is living in the Old Covenant as if it contains power in and of itself apart from the New Covenant. God still loves this "stiff necked" people and yet acknowledges that they took a wrong turn when they rejected Christ.

Why was the Catholic Church so slow to recognize the state of Israel?

After the crucifixion, the curtain of the Jewish sanctuary was torn in two (Mk 15:37-39, Lk 23:44-46, Mt 27:51). At that point a transfer of authority happened and we believe that the fledgling Church became the New Israel. In that respect we hold beliefs similar to Replacement Theology. The Catholic Catechism Article 63 explains:

Israel is the priestly people of God, "called by the name of the LORD", and "the first to hear the word of God", the people of "elder brethren" in the faith of Abraham.

Catechism 877 says:

... In fact, from the beginning of his ministry, the Lord Jesus instituted the Twelve as "the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy." Chosen together, they were also sent out together, and their fraternal unity would be at the service of the fraternal communion of all the faithful: they would reflect and witness to the communion of the divine persons...

And then the Catechism goes on to explain the process by which the Church grew and developed through Evangelization and developed through the unity of the Bishops who were installed by the apostles and so on.

That is why the Catholic Church was so reluctant to diplomatically recognize the state of Israel. The lack of diplomatic recognition of the state of Israel was not so much anti-semitic but rather because it was unbiblical to imply that the New Israel is not the followers of Christ, his Church.

In 1994, the new Catholic Catechism made it clear that Scripture predicts a full conversion of the Jewish people to Christ in the end times (#674). It made it clear there is no means of Salvation for the Jews apart from Christ, and that Jesus' plan includes the Jewish people. There is no parallel path of Salvation for the Jews apart from Christ, which is what could have been inferred by the Church's recognition of the state of Israel before that publication. That same year, in 1994, Pope John Paul II recognized Israel as a political entity, like any other state. It was a diplomatic recognition, not a spiritual recognition of the "New Israel" of Scripture, which has always been understood to be the Church.

Catholics believe that the mass conversion of the Jews in the end times is very biblical.

Article 674 of the Catechism states:

The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for a "hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus. (Rom. 11:20-26; Mt. 23:39) St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old." (Acts 3:19-21) St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" (Rom. 11:15) The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles," (Rom. 11:12, 25; Lk. 21:24) will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ," in which "God may be all in all." (Eph. 4:13; 1 Cor. 15:28).

The Catholic Church recognizes that there is something particularly special about the the Jewish people. We don't think the Jews have been accursed. As in the other cases in the Old Testament, the Jews were not abandoned and St. Paul makes it clear that the Grace and election they had received from God was irrevocable (Rom 11:29). We do not agree with Evangelical Replacement Theologies that completely divorce the "hard hearted"Jews (as a people) from God's special affection and attention. The nature of that relationship is a profound mystery. We believe they will experience a softening of their hearts towards Jesus Christ in the end times and there will be an amazing mass conversion that will even surpass the day that 3000 people converted after the Pentecost (Acts 2:41). Today, Jewish people who come to Christ are doubly blessed. They are not just like everybody else (the Gentiles) because:

• of their unique heritage and the Patriarchs
• Scripture made predictions about them
• God's mercy and love for them
• their contribution to the Kingdom of God before Christ

Nevertheless, modern Jews are only saved because they remain steadfast in their Messianic hope which properly speaking is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the END of the Mosaic law - both its goal and its terminus. Anyone who tries to abide by the Mosaic Law today should do so in devotional homage to Jesus who kept the law perfectly NOT in obedience to Moses who did not. Even though we predict a mass conversion of the Jews, Catholics understand that we are not supposed to sit on our hands and say "One day they'll all convert, so let's not try to Evangelize them today." St. Paul said "Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel" (1 Cor 9:16). We must preach the Gospel of Love, with Love, not animosity. Dr. Art Sippo says:

Some "Messianic's" exaggerate the animosity of Christians towards the Jews without considering the hatred of Jews towards the Christians. Neither side is innocent of wrong doing in this matter. This story is not black and white and everyone has things they need to repent about.

The Catholic Church has come a long way since it opened up the windows of the Church to dialogue outside itself at Vatican II. Identification of any Church animosity towards Judaism usually stems from pre-Vatican II. The Church is on a pilgrimage and is still learning. That is why there is no dogma about this yet. Even the Early Church Fathers were divided about the future of the Jewish people who as a group rejected Christ. The discussion is still very much active with the Church. Article 66 of the Catechism says:

"The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. ..

Personally, I pray for the Jews, the same way as I pray for my older brother who doesn't believe in Jesus. I love him and it's hard to see him go down the wrong road.

Did gentile Christians hijack Christianity from the Jews?

Modern Messianic Christians think Gentiles should have grafted into the chosen people (the Jews). They say that gentile Christians hijacked Christianity from the early Jewish Christians.

It is not often mentioned that Messianic Christian denominations are not more than 50 years old and have no direct lineage to early Christianity. Their theology does not line up with the writings of the Early Church Fathers of the first centuries. Modern Messianic Christians do not have ceremonies anything like the first Jewish Christians who celebrated the Eucharist, prayed for the dead, loved Mary and venerated the Saints and Martyrs. Most of the Early Church Fathers were Jewish. The structure and theology that they hammered out was very much influenced by its Jewish roots. (The Mass, the Priesthood, the vestments etc...) However, it was a "New Covenant"

The Church is the bride of Christ and the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2) and the keys of the New Covenant were handed over to Peter and the Apostles and his successors (Mat 16:18). They had the authority to direct the Church given to them by Jesus. The emerging structure of bishops, jurisdictions, and theology is a result of that authority. St. Ignatius was the first to use the term "Catholic Church" in about 110 A.D., 20 years after John wrote his Gospel. He said a Church without the episcopacy (structure) was impossible. His letters present a clear view of the hierarchical and monarchical structure of the Church.

"Where the bishop is, there let the people be, as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church."
Ignatius 110 A.D.

A timeline of the Catholic Church is here.

Saying that Early Christians hijacked Christianity is like saying that Aaron and Moses hijacked Judaism because they appointed 70 elders, or that Samuel hijacked Judaism because he introduced ruling Kings over the Jews. God inspired those Old Testament servants to change the structure of Judaism and God inspired the Early Church Fathers to prayerfully hammer out the new way that things should happen under the New Covenant.

The emerging Church based on Peter and his successors in unison with the bishops had the authority to recognize Greek philosophical thought and interpret it in light of the Gospel of Jesus (more about that below). It was through their deliberations that we came to our Christian understanding of the Trinity in 381 A.D. It was through their prayer and hard work that we came to a decision on the books to be included in the Bible in 397 A.D. It took 350 years to nail down the Bible! The Church Fathers did not hijack Christianity, they WERE Christianity. There was no other Christianity except for the odd heresy that said Jesus wasn't divine and stuff like that.

Does the "the fullness of time", include anything besides Israel?

The Church Fathers recognized the time in history which Jesus came to earth. The Bible says:

...When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son... (Gal 4:4)

In Acts 16: 26 Paul says "[God] determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live." This is the historical context into which Jesus chose to enter the world. I don’t think that it is an accident. Here are a few of the characteristics of this "fullness of time."

• The history of the Jewish people had come to a head
• The philosophy of the Greeks had matured
• The civilization of the Romans had advanced technically and politically

In this "fullness of time" there were 3 prominent cities; Jerusalem, Athens (Greece), and Rome. From Jerusalem we have the story of salvation history. We get the Old Testament, we learn about the family of God. In Greece, humanity learned to ask the most penetrating questions about the most important issues such as: What is just? Does might make right? How do we know what something is? How can we know the truth? From Greece we also are provided with our Christian vocabulary, i.e., Logos (Jn. 1:1). From Rome we get the social structure through which all of this flows into our own time. It is the basis of secular law and even the organization of our Church from its earliest beginnings with the apostles.

Likewise, science is purified in this context. From Jerusalem we understand that man is created to have dominion over all the earth, to know and understand the created order. In Greece we find the beginning of science and the organization of philosophy into various disciplines. From Rome we find the application of that knowledge in public works for public law, with limits codified in law. With all of these in combination, faith and reason find there complimenting balance and we become fit citizens of the new Jerusalem.

In this "fullness of time" everything ties together. The Church was not just about making a few tweaks to Judaism. If Jesus had come earlier simply to the Jewish people without the context of Rome and Greece, Christianity may have been a failure. All of these conditions (among others) were necessary for Christianity to succeed.

Why did the Church move to Rome from Jerusalem?

Just as the Old Testament is full of foreshadowing of the New Testament, Catholics believe the Bible is clear that the New Jerusalem found in the Book of Revelation is not the historic city of Jerusalem. After the death of Jesus, the Old Testament prophecies about Jerusalem were clearly understood as a reference to God's people (the New Israel) rather than the historic city of Jerusalem. So the the seat of the Church could be anywhere on earth. This paved the way for the move to Rome.

Jesus wanted the Gospel preached through all the world. If there had not been persecutions in Jerusalem it is questionable how far the Gospel would have traveled. The persecutions forced the apostles outward. We see in the book of Acts a powerful movement to establish the Church in Rome. That is where the book of Acts finishes. St. Luke states, “This is how we finally came to Rome” (Acts 28:14). Some Evangelicals think the Book of Acts ends too abruptly. They fail to see that the establishment of the Early Church in Rome was the goal and Luke ends his book when this is accomplished.

Catholics accept that Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom by Jesus (Mathew 16:18). There is overwhelming Biblical and historical evidence to support this. The early Christians accepted that Peter was given the keys.

Peter died in Rome and that's where his successors were. Meanwhile in Jerusalem in 70 AD a great persecution made the Church almost completely inactive there until about 130 AD. There is no biblical evidence of a power struggle between St. James (the Bishop of Jerusalem) and St. Peter.

“Simon, Simon! Remember Satan has asked for you (Greek plural-“you all”), to sift you all like wheat. But I have prayed for you (Greek singular-“you alone”) that your faith may never fail. You in turn must strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31-32).

Peter oversaw the grafting in of the Samaritans, and then the Gentiles. This could have wrecked the faith, but under Peter's guidance the Church went along with it, because he was their leader. Jesus said "make disciples of all peoples" (Mat 28:19) and that could best be accomplished through the communications centre of the world, which was Rome.

From a clearly practical standpoint, I can't possibly imagine how the Church could have succeeded with the Pope in Jerusalem. Jerusalem has been in a constant state of turmoil, and has been conquered many times. Jerusalem was under Islamic rule for many of centuries since the time of Christ. I can imagine the fate of the seat of the Vicar of Christ under Islamic Rule. It would have been a disaster. More about the move to Rome here.

What's up with the use of Greek Philosophy in Christianity?

Above we discussed that the "fullness of time" in which Jesus came indicated that he wanted Greek and Roman and social and philosophical influences on the New Covenant, as well as Israel's history. The New Covenant was for all nations. The New Testament of the Bible was written in Greek, the Greek Septuagint had been translated from the Hebrew OT just before the time of Christ. The Greek Old Testament was Jesus' choice when he referred to the Old Testament. Greek was the language of choice for the new Christians. Any linguist will quickly point out that language and the philosophy behind that language are inseparably linked. It was the richness of the Greek language which was infused with a wealth of deep philosophical overtones that made it the language of choice. The Greeks were light years ahead of the rest of humanity in these matters and this brilliance was a gift from God.

We should be quick to see God's plan in all of this. It in no way subordinates the Jews who are the original chosen people of God. In the New Testament we learn for the first time that God has a plan of salvation for all people, he is not locked into the closed Jewish system. The New Testament would have been a failure if it did not incorporate Greek concepts. THat's why Paul, John and other writers draw upon Greek philosophy in the Bible. Many things in the emerging Christianity would have to be done differently and thought of differently in the New Testament, and part of that includes influences from the rich wealth of Greek philosophic concepts that are not well defined in the Jewish writings. For instance let us consider one of the most famous Scripture verses.

In the beginning was the word (Logos) and the word (Logos) was with God. (John 1:1)

Let us consider this opening to the Book of John. HIs use of the word Logos in Greek, introduces an explosion of meaning and depth. Any Greek philosopher of the day would have known about the Logos. The Stoics (Greek Philosophers) saw the Logos as the cause which shapes orders and directs the entire universe and the lives of those who inhabit it. For them, the Logos is the reason for everything that exists, the ultimate principle imminent in things. John was not at all worried that the word Logos had been associated with Pantheistic concepts. He simply claimed it and overcame their concept of the imminence of God, and fulfilled it with the transcendence of God. In other words, he said "Although God created the box (this universe), God is outside the box." In Verse 14 when John says "the Logos became flesh" it was amazing. It was a completion of the Greek Philosophy, not a rejection of it. This laid another piece in the framework for Augustine and Aquinas who further took up this approach to theology in later centuries.

We think there is a reason why Greek was used in the New Testament, and why the Septuagint (Old Testament) was translated to Greek from Hebrew. We think there is a reason why the New Testament talks a lot about the Hellenists and even uses Greek philosophy.

"...'for in him we live and move and have our being.'
As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "
(Acts 16:28)

Here Paul quotes the Greek poet Epimenides (500BC) and Aratus (300 BC)

Yes, Greek philosophy is found in the Bible!

Paul quotes the Greek Philosopher Aratus in Titus 1:12 when he was trying to convert the Greeks. "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons."

So yes, Greek thought is an important part of authentic Christianity, as is Roman organizational structural and of course the lineage of the people of God, the Hebrews.

Lord Jesus, let Your prayer of unity for Christians
become a reality, in Your way
we have absolute confidence
that you can bring your people together
we give you absolute permission to move
Amen

See also: Why did the Early Christians use Greek philosophy and incorporate the Hellenists (Greeks) into Christianity?

©2002-2007 David MacDonald
Thanks to Art Sippo, Fr. Terry Donahue and John Pacheco for contributing ideas for this article.

David's Music CD Here