B”H
- Yoel Ben Arye
Introduction
The object of this study is to improve Jewish-Christian theological relations and to demystify certain aspects of these relations. To these ends, this article will discuss – from our hermeneutic viewpoint – Christ’s statement presented in the Gospel of John (14:6): “(…) No one can come to the Father except through me.”
This statement played a major role in the development of a negative theology in relation to the Jews (1). Indeed, the fact that the Jews did not profess belief in Jesus, as explained initially by the Apostle Paul in Rom 10:9 and subsequently formulated in the Church Creed, led to accusations of unfaithfulness to the Messiah and damning of the Jews by G-d. This conception ultimately developed into the doctrine of contempt and, more seriously, the doctrine of the substitution of G-d’s chosen people. Accordingly, the Church awarded itself the exclusive status of being the true Israel (Verus Israel). (2)
The more generalized interpretation of Christ’s teaching in the Gospel of John (14:6) would give the Jews two options:
- To achieve salvation passing along the “path of truth and life” and entering the Father’s house by the “gate of the sheepfold”, i.e. through Jesus;
- To attain their own perdition.
In light of this situation, we pose the following questions: Are these options true? Is this dilemma correct? Do the Holy Scriptures accord with this thesis? Is it not possible that these alternatives, insinuated in John 14:6, are not merely consequences of hermeneutics that should be reevaluated and replaced by another more consistent alternative? We would like to propose here a thesis differing from the view commonly accepted.
Scopes of Jesus’ Messianic Mission
The complete version of the text to be analyzed states:
Jesus said (to Thomas): I am the Way; I am Truth and Life. No one can come to the Father except through me” (Jn 14:6). [My clarification in brackets and my emphasis].
According to this statement, nobody is excluded from “coming to the Father” or, more exactly, “Father’s House” (Jn 14:2-4), if he does so through Jesus, i.e. through a confession and act of faith (Rom 10:9). Moreover, if we taken into consideration Jesus’ statement, where he defines himself as “the gate of the sheepfold” (Jn 10:7-9), we obtain a hermetic picture in which there would be no possibility of salvation for anybody except through the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth. Bearing this in mind, the Jews would not be exempt from following this path to obtain their salvation, and their strict adherence to the Mosaic Law would not be a sufficient condition to achieve salvation.
In principle, these sayings (logia) contradict our extensive analyses of the NT (3), which show that Christ’s messianic mission, through his intermediation and confession of faith (4) affects all mankind except for the Jewish people. Likewise, when Jesus declares that he is sent only “to the lost sheep of the House of Israel” (Mt 15:24), he refers to the “ten lost tribes” or House of Israel, not to the Jews making up the House of Judah.
How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? Certainly, since the appearance of Jesus, nobody comes to the Father except through him (Eph. 2:11-13, 17-19). However, those who always were and remain with the Father, by definition, cannot come to Him, i.e. to the Father, in any way, since they are with Him all the time; therefore they do not need to come through any gate, nor do they require Christ’s mediation. In other words, even though Christ is the “path”, “shepherd” and “gate”, he cannot become the redeemer of those who do not require his mediation.
Henceforth, we only have to show that, according to the NT, those who are always with the Father are the Jews of all times, i.e. the House of Judah. Let us first take a look at what is known as the “Parable of Parables” (5), i.e., the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). The younger son (the prodigal son) demands from his father his share of the estate and:
A few days later, the younger son got together everything he had and left for a distant country where he squandered his money on a life of debauchery. (Lk 15:12-13).
For his part, the elder brother never left his Father’s house, or his Father’s estate:
He (the Father) said (to the elder son): My son, you are with me always and all I have is yours. (Lk 15:31). [My clarifications in brackets].
The elder son or firstborn represents the House of Judah. It should be noted that this is confirmed by the NT when it lists the assets that belong to the House of Judah that were never lost:
I could pray that I myself (Paul) might be accursed and cut off from Christ, if this could benefit the brothers who are my own flesh and blood. They are Israelites; it was they who were adopted as children, the glory was theirs and the covenants; to them were given the Law and the worship of G-d and the promises. To them belong the fathers and out of them, so far as physical descent is concerned, came Christ (…) (Rom 9:3-5). [My clarification in brackets].
Christian tradition also confirms that the elder son is identified with the Jews, for instance (6):
The second part of the parable (vv. 25-32) presents the reaction of the son who remained at home when he sees his father’s behavior.
It is commonly held that this “faithful” son represents the Pharisees (…).
The Jews, in general, are represented by the image of the “Pharisees”, but, in reality, all Judaism of the last 1900 years derives from Pharisaism.
The Pontifical Bible Commission document (7) states:
In the parable of the merciful father: Lk (15:11-32), who invites the firstborn son to open up his heart to the prodigal son, he does not suggest directly the application, which has been made sometimes, to the relations between Jews and Gentiles (the elder son would represent the observant Jews, with little inclination to welcome the pagans, considered as sinners). Nonetheless it may be thought that the broader context of the Gospel of Luke makes this application possible, given his insistence on universalism.
In one of his works (8), Eleuterio Elourdy also writes:
(…) Irenaeus (…) uses the parables to rebut Marcion and the Valentinians, and to show that the Old Testament G-d is the same G-d as in the New Testament, despite the different treatment given to the two brothers: to the elder who represents the Israelite OT, and to the younger, who represents the believers who come from paganism, who are forgiven everything if they return to their father’s house, where the unity of the Eucharist feast is always celebrated with jubilation with the fatted calf.
While, for Irenaeus, the elder brother represents the OT in the Israelites (in the Jews or the house of Judah), and it is they who are always with the Father, i.e., with G-d, nonetheless, the Gentile pagans can never represent the youngest son, since they were never considered sons of G-d. Moreover, the Gentiles could never have left the house of the Father, because they were never in it. If the Gentiles had kept the Noahide Laws, they would have entered this house during the period in which these laws were in force.
Only the people of Israel are called G-d’s firstborn son (Ex 4:22 and Deut 14:1-2). Consequently, the youngest son can only refer to that part of Israel that was lost among the Gentiles, i.e., the House of Israel (the 10 lost tribes).
The Old Testament is also explicit as regards the abandon – or rather, expulsion – from the “Father’s house”, but there is no reference to the expulsion of the house of Judah, since it remains with Him permanently:
(…) Have you seen that which backsliding Israel has done? She is gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there has played the prostitute.
I said after she had done all these things, She will return to me; but she didn’t return: and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
She saw, when, for this very cause that backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorce (…) (Jer 3:6-8).
Without considering the magnitude of the sins of the House of Judah, including in comparison with those of the House of Israel (Jer 3:11), since this explanation goes beyond the terms of this analysis, we can affirm certainly that the House of Israel, and not the House of Judah, was the only one expelled and the only one that received the bill of divorce.
According to these statements of the prophet Jeremiah, the mission assumed by Jesus and his apostles to “seek the lost sheep of the house of Israel” can be understood more clearly. This mission is confirmed also in the same chapter of Jeremiah (Jer 3:12-18), in relation to Judah’s role:
In those days the house of Judah will go to the house of Israel, and they will come together out of the land of the north to the land that I gave for an inheritance to your fathers (Jer 3:18).
This is so, since Jesus himself said: “(…) salvation comes from the Jews (Jn 4:22).
All things considered, in Jesus’ statement: “”No one can come to the Father except through me” the House of Judah must be excluded since the Jews (House of Judah), considered the elder son, are permanently with the Father; consequently, they do not require Jesus’ intercession or that of anyone else to come to G-d, since they have always remained with Him.
In Ezekiel’s prophecy, we find other facts that reinforce our hypothesis and our interpretation of this parable:
(…) Thus says the Lord: Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his companions; and I will put them with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in my hand. (Ez 37:19).
It should be noted that, on one hand, when the Lord takes Joseph’s stick from Ephraim, He takes it from someone who is external to Him (i.e. who is not with Him). On the other hand, Judah’s stick is not taken from any external source, since it is always with Him, in His hand. Only when the stick that was outside Him is joined with the stick that is with Him, will they be one in His hand.
In relation to the problem posed in this work, Pope John Paul II, despite his ambivalent attitude towards the State of Israel even after establishing of diplomatic relations between the Holy See and this State (9), spoke repeatedly and clearly about the Jews’ status of Elder Brother (10) in relation to the Church:
During that memorable visit (to the Synagogue of Rome, on April 13, 1986), I spoke of the Jews as our elder brothers in the faith. These words were an expression both of the Council’s teaching (Vatican II) and a profound conviction on the part of the Church (…)
This extraordinary people continues to bear signs of its divine election (…)
Thus the way, two great moments of divine election are drawing closer together: the Old and the New Covenants (11). [My clarifications in brackets].
We can note that this papal statement defines a level of equality between the “great moments of the divine election: the Old and the New Covenant”. Nonetheless, certain documents of the Catholic Church not only question the status of equality, but also openly place Judaism in a situation of inferiority (even of rebelliousness) in comparison with the Church. For instance, the already cited Pontifical Bible Commission document notes:
Their refusal of faith in Christ places the Jewish people in a situation of disobedience, but they are still “loved” and promised G-d’s mercy (cf. Rm 11:26-32).
Finally, in one of his works (12), J. A. Sayés quotes a text of the International Theological Commission:
The privileged sphere of the action of the Spirit is the Church, body of Christ. However all the peoples are called, in different ways, to the unity of the people of G-d moved by the Spirit.
The author, when introducing this quotation, emphasizes that the Church is the people of G-d and consciously or unconsciously excludes the Jewish people. Thus, we maintain that this statement does not take into consideration either the parable under analysis or the parable of the “new wine and the old wineskins” (Mr 2:22-23; Lk 5:37-39). Principally, however, he disregards the parable of the “good olive tree” (Rom 11:11-29) where, on one hand, the Church is made up of the “branches of the wild olive” and the “branches broken off” (House of Israel) of the “good olive tree” and, on the other hand, Judaism constitutes the “sap” and the House of Judah, the branches that were not broken off and continue to be nourished from the sap of the “good olive tree, although now not exclusively”.
We can find another proof that Christ’s mission excludes the Jews, in the following passages:
The Pharisees and their scribes complained to his disciples and said, ‘Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?’ Jesus said to them in reply, ‘It is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick. I came to call not the upright, but the sinners.’ (Lk 5:30-32) [My emphasis].
From this passage, we can draw two conclusions:
- If the sinners and tax collectors are Jews, then Jesus comes only to call them to repentance (“teshuva”) and not to conversion to a new religion based on a new covenant or testament.
- Jesus gives the scribes and Pharisees a status of “healthy” and upright, i.e. who do not need him.
In any case and whatever the interpretation of this passage, what is certain is that among the Jews, there are people who have no need of him. For Jesus, there exists at least one group to which he does not offer salvation through a new religion acting as intermediary between men and G-d, but he calls some to repentance and he considers others to possess the true path to salvation because they are “healthy” and “upright”.
Conclusions
In light of the above analysis, Christianity in general should reconsider its traditional interpretation of this teaching of Christ and accept that, while nobody is saved without coming to the Father’s house except through Jesus, nonetheless the Jews are exempted from fulfilling this requirement. They do not need to come to the Father, entering through any gate, i.e. through Christ, since they remain constantly with the Father and their salvation depends only on observance of the Law.
Notes:
(1) See also, for instance, A. Yoel Ben-Arye’s article, “The problem of the Law in the NT”.
(2) See A. Yoel Ben-Arye: “Verus Israel, a problem of identity”.
(3) Qumran Institute (1990): The New Testament Seen for the Last Time. Jerusalem (unpublished).
(4) As it appears in the Letter to the Romans: “(…) if you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and if you believe with your heart that G-d raised him from the dead, then you will be saved” (Rom 10:9).
(5) Elourdy, Eleuterio (1977): El pecado original. Madrid, B.A:C., pp. 413.
(6) Benoit, P.; Boismard, M.E.; Malillos, J.L. (1977): Synopsis of the Four Gospels (Spanish adaptation by J.L. Malillos). Bilbao, Editorial Española Desclee de Brouwer, Vol. II, pp. 277 (note 232).
See also, Sayés: José Antonio: (2001): Cristianismo y religiones (La salvación fuera de la Iglesia) (Christianity and religions: salvation outside the Church). Madrid, 2001, San Pablo, pp.132-135.
(7) Pontifical Bible Commission (2001): The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. Rome, Pontifical Bible Commission.
(8) Op. cit. pp. 418.
(9) The establishment of diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the State of Israel did not mean, on the part of the former, theological (and de jure) recognition of the Jewish people’s right to the Land of Israel (which is the land promised to Israel in the Holy Scriptures). In the text on the Fundamental Agreement between The Holy See and the State of Israel (December 30, 1993), there is not the slightest hint of such recognition.
See the articles by Barak, Gabriel: “John Paul II, Jerusalem and the State of Israel” (Jerusalem, June 1990) and “The Vatican, the State of Israel and the Jewish People” (Jerusalem, September 1990), both unpublished.
(10) In the statements of Pope John Paul II relating to the status of Elder Brother granted to the Jewish people, there is no negative connotation in respect to Judaism. Nonetheless, this status has not always been free of negative insinuations throughout the history of the Church, not only in the teaching given by the Holy Scriptures through the parable of the prodigal son, but also taking into account that Cain, Ishmael and Esau were “elder brothers”.
(11) John Paul II (1994): Crossing the Threshold of Hope. Internet edition: http://www.catholic.net/RCC/POPE/HopeBook/chap16.html.
(12) International Theological Commission: “Christianity and the world religions” (No. 56), quoted by Sayés, J. A. (2001): Cristianismo y religiones (La salvación fuera de la Iglesia). Madrid, San Pablo, pp. 172.