The New Covenant

BS”D

Introduction

The New Covenant is one of the subjects on which Jews and Christians are divided. According to the Christian interpretation, the founding moment of the New Covenant is the Jewish Passover meal (known as the Last Supper), the moment when Jesus shares out the bread and wine and teaches the apostles that these elements constitute his body and his blood.

The theologians found the doctrinal bases of this teaching of Jesus in the Old Testament, specifically in Jeremiah’s prophecy (31:31-33), the only passage that refers to it. The other arguments, that can be found, for instance, in the prophecies of Ezekiel and Isaiah, are complementary to Jeremiah’s teachings. However, until now a sufficiently consistent explanation has not been presented for the relationship between the aforesaid Biblical texts and the Christian doctrine on the topic discussed here. In this work, I will seek to establish better theologically consistent connections between both “Testaments”, and to explain the doctrinal problems generated by the traditional interpretations.

I will begin with the analysis of the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in order to determine the contents of this New Covenant and the persons to whom it is addressed, as well as the conditions required for it to take place. In a second stage I will study the relevant passages in the New Testament texts, more specifically, in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and in the First Letter to the Corinthians, to see how they are complementary to the Old Testament. Subsequently, I will undertake a criticism of the interpretations and teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this subject, and finally, the need for a doctrinal adaptation will be considered, if this interpretation is accepted as the most consistent of those available until now.

Before embarking on the analysis, we must take into account the theological background with which we are working, which was discussed extensively in my previous book.[1] In this work I showed that the redemption of mankind depends on the redemption of the people of Israel, and this, in turn, on a sine qua non requirement: the reunion of the two separate houses of the people of Israel – Judah, made up of contemporary Jewry, and Israel, formed today by the so-called Ten Lost Tribes, which, as I also demonstrated, are those who make up contemporary Christianity together with the Gentiles who join them (Babylonian Talmud, Tr. Pesachim 87b). The redemption also depends on the union of the two houses taking place in the Land of Israel, and it is as a result of this union that the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah will come to pass (Jer. 31:31-33).

I will begin with the conclusion of a Catholic author, Father Gustavo Javier Nieto, on the problems that this prophecy of Jeremiah causes for the theologians. While the reference is only to Jer. 31:33b, I considered that his reflections can be extended to the entire prophecy of Jer. 31:31-33. Nieto explains:

If we consider the transcendence and profundity of what is expressed (Jer. 31:33b), we find that the commentators in general are sparing in commenting on our metaphor. Frequently we are faced with a paradoxical situation: the importance and centrality of this oracle are generally affirmed to be the spiritual summit of Jeremiah and even of the entire Old Testament; yet when it comes to taking the metaphor to explain the formal content and elucidate it with the same elements that the text gives us, the commentaries are very poor in explanations. Many fall back on simple paraphrases, others only succeed in presenting general considerations, but few attempt to delve into the meaning of the description. Yet there is a transcendental theological content in this verse.[2]

This situation is not fortuitous, since it is practically impossible for the exegete or the theologian to propound (or propose) a consistent explanation of this prophecy within the context of the current doctrine. However, when we approach the subject from outside the current doctrine, an optimal level of consistency can be obtained. Even the translator into Spanish of this Scripture, as will be seen in the following paragraph, finds it difficult to reconcile his version (according to the Jerusalem Bible) with its doctrinal conception, since he places in brackets the phrase “(and with the house of Judah)”, which does not appear in the Hebrew original. Moreover, he translates the words “the covenant I will make” (in the future in the original) in the present writing “the covenant I make”.

Furthermore, while for the theological conception of Christianity this matter is central and constitutes one of the basic founding principles of the creation of the Church, for Judaism the question of the New Covenant is merely an eschatological hope. Notwithstanding, Christians and Jews base their conceptions on this topic on the prophecy in Jeremiah 31:31-33.

The New Covenant in the Old Testament

Throughout the last two millennia, Jews and Christians have been, and currently are, really under the obligations of two different covenants. However, neither of the two parts is yet under the obligation of the “new covenant”, as expressed in the book of Jeremiah (31:31) and in its complement, the prophecy of Ezekiel (37:15-28). The New Covenant will be implemented in the final stage of the age known by both faiths as “the end of days” (ketz hayamim), when Jews and Christians (the house of Judah and the house of Israel) cease to be two separate parts of the people and are one in the Land of Israel.

In the prophecy of Jeremiah, according to the Jerusalem Bible, we read:

See, the days are coming – it is The LORD who speaks – when I will make a new covenant [in the future] with the House of Israel (and the House of Judah), but not a covenant like the one I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. They broke that covenant of mine, so I had to show them who was master. It is The LORD who speaks. NO, this is the covenant I will make [in the present in the Spanish version, but in Hebrew and in English in the future: וכרתי, אין פה ו חיבור אלא ו מתפכת] with the House of Israel when those days arrive – it is The LORD who speaks. Deep within them I will plant my Law, writing it on their hearts. Then I will be their God and they shall be my people. (Jer 31:31-33)[3]

According to this text, there are two covenants: one, the New Covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah, which will be unbreakable: “not a covenant like the one I made with their ancestors … They broke that covenant of mine.” The other, however, is sealed with the House of Israel only, and it is affirmed that G-d will place his law “deep within them” (the correct translation is “in the inward parts”); “and they shall be my people”, adds the text. This paragraph further reinforces the idea that there is a “previous” covenant here with the house of Israel, since the house of Judah never stopped being the people of G-d.[4] It is only the house of Israel that ceased to be a part of the people of Israel, since according to the prophecy in Jeremiah 3:8 this house receives a bill of divorce (ספר כריתותיה), or more specifically, is uprooted (split off), i.e. cast out of the house of G-d. Only through Jesus of Nazareth (Mt 15:24) does the house of Israel have a new way of salvation, no longer through fulfillment of the Law of Moses, but through divine grace (e.g. Gal 5:4).

In a second stage, according to Jeremiah’s prophecy, a new and definitive covenant will be established with both houses. The covenant referred to in Jer 31:33 with the house of Israel only, is a necessary and vital precondition so that the second stage of the New Covenant can be implemented with the two houses, when they are united in their land, according to Ezek 37:21-28.

The objective of the covenant sealed only with the house of Israel consists in recovering this house since, it should be remembered, it had been expelled by G-d (Jer 3:8) due to its sins of idolatry; therefore it was no longer His people and part of the people of Israel. This “new” covenant with the house of Israel (the ten lost tribes), which, it is emphasized, has nothing to do with the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah (31:31) grafts back the house of Israel, i.e. “the cut off branches of the good olive tree” (Rom 11:17-24) together with the branches of the “wild olive”, i.e. the Gentiles (ibid.), so that they will come to form part of the people of Israel together with the house of Judah (the branches that were not cut off, but always remained on the trunk of the good olive tree).

In Jeremiah 31:33, when G-d tells the house of Israel, after having made a covenant with it, that it will be His people and He will be its G-d, this means that before this covenant the house of Israel was not the people of G-d, or rather, it had ceased to be the people of G-d, because it received a bill of divorce according to Jeremiah 3:21 and was expelled from the house of G-d. However, with the mission that G-d sends to Jesus in Matthew 15:24 the house of Israel can now return. The Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 explains this return. For its part, the house of Judah never stopped being G-d’s People.

The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 will have other characteristics and will be with the two houses, after the house of Israel is reintegrated in the People of Israel.

From another perspective, although the covenant with the house of Israel is “new” for it (represented in the sacrifice of the calf, in the Parable of the Prodigal Son [Lk 15:23-24], or more explicitly in the sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth), Jeremiah does not call it “new”. For the prophet, the only new covenant is that which is characterized by the fact that it will not be broken (as interpreted by Jewish tradition, e.g., Rashi: Lv 26:9 or Ramban (Nachmanides): Ex 34:27):

Not a covenant like the one I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. They broke that covenant of mine, so I had to show them who was master. It is the LORD who speaks. (Jer. 31:32) [In the original Hebrew, this quote corresponds to Jer 31:31. My clarification in brackets].

Any other covenant is not new, even though it is necessary and serves the redemption process; in fact, the sacrifice of a calf for expiation (kapara) for sins is not new.

It is the prophet Ezekiel who gives more details on this new covenant: he indicates that it will be a covenant of peace (shalom) and confirms its eternal nature, namely that it cannot be broken, or will not be broken, and it will also be carried out with both houses together:

The LORD says this: I am going to take the sons of Israel from the nations where they have gone. I shall gather them together from everywhere and bring them home to their own soil. I shall make them into one nation in my own land and on the mountains of Israel, and one king is to be king of them all; they will no longer form two nations, nor be two separate kingdoms. They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and their filthy practices and all their sins. I shall rescue them from all the betrayal they have been guilty of; I shall cleanse them; they shall be my people and I will be their G-d My servant David will reign over them, one shepherd for all; they will follow my observances, respect my laws and practice them. They will live in the land that I gave my servant Jacob, the land in which your ancestors lived. They will live in it, they, their children, their children’s children, for ever. David my servant is to be their prince for ever. I shall make a covenant of peace with them, an eternal covenant with them. I shall resettle them and increase them; I shall settle my sanctuary among them for ever. I shall make my home above them; I will be their G-d, they shall be my people. (Jer 31:32; Lv 26:12; 2 Cor 6:16). And the nations will learn that I am the LORD, the sanctifier of Israel, when my sanctuary is with them for ever. (Ez 37: 21-28) [My emphasis].

It should be clarified firstly that when G-d says: they will be my people and I will be their G-d, it does not mean that before this the two houses were not G-d’s people. While they are separated they have a status other than the status they will acquire with the New Covenant. When He confirms a Covenant, G-d says they shall be my people and I will be their G-d:

According to Ezekiel’s prophecy, G-d is going to establish a covenant of peace (Brit Shalom Brit Olam), that will be eternal, but, only when both houses are united, or, rather, provided that they are united, both in the Land of Israel (in Ezekiel’s hand) and in heaven (in G-d’s hand). In other words, and to well establish this concept, if the union of the two houses is not carried out in the Land of Israel, this covenant of peace will not be carried out either. This is related to the theme of the restoration (Acts 1:6).[5]

Another lesson that must be deduced from the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel is that, if there is going to be new covenant, the previous covenants will be invalid. Namely, the ways of salvation of Judaism and Christianity (the house of Judah and the house of Israel) based on different covenants, will be replaced by a new and single way for both, under a single and new covenant.

The Christian (Catholic) argument that the covenant made by Jesus and confirmed with his sacrifice is the same covenant of which the prophet Jeremiah and Ezekiel speak does not pass the test of historical reality, because it has been permanently broken during the last two millennia and peace is still an eschatological hope. However, the assertion (analyzed in greater detail in the context of Section 66 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) that this covenant that began two thousand years ago is a covenant under construction, i.e. in process of crystallization, does not support the basic understanding of the nature of this covenant: if, by definition, it will be impossible to break it, this should happen from the very moment of confirmation of the covenant and not at the end of the process.

To sum up, two covenants are referred to here:

One and definitive covenant, with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah together, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah (31:31), corroborated by Ezekiel’s prophecy (37:15-26). This new covenant will be different from that of Sinai, which could be broken- “not a covenant like the one I made with their ancestors … They broke that covenant of mine” – and will be made when both houses are reunited in the land of Israel. It must be very clear that there is no other place in the world where this covenant can be carried out, because, according to the Scriptures: Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem (Is 2:3, Mi 4:2).
The covenant that was already sealed two thousand years ago, through the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth, was with the house of Israel only, as G-d says through the prophet (“Deep within them I will plant my Law, writing it on their hearts. Then I will be their G-d and they shall be my people”).

On this covenant we can note that:

It is not said that it cannot be broken.
G-d will plant his law deep within the members of the house of Israel, writing it on their hearts.
When G-d refers in Jeremiah 31:33 to the law that will be planted deep within them and written on their hearts, he is speaking of the Law that Israel received at Sinai, but this does not mean that it has the same characteristics as the law that Judaism sees today as guardian and fulfilling the tradition of Sinai, i.e. with that aspect of the Law, called “the force of grace” (co’ah ha-hesed), as already seen in my previous work, on p. 258 HaAmek Davar, on Bereshit 50:23 . As regards the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31, it can only be known that it will be a covenant that cannot be broken and that it will be a covenant of peace.

According to Jewish tradition, the law or Torah (torati = my law, Jer 31:33) has seventy “faces” or interpretations. One of the relevant interpretations in relation to the subject under discussion is expounded by HaAmek Davar[6]:

As the prophet Yehezkel [Ezekiel] said: take a stick and write on it, “For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions”. And take another stick and write on it: “for Joseph, stick of Ephraim and for the entire house of Israel his companions.” The precision of what is written in relation to Judah and the children of Israel and his companions, and to Yosef [Joseph] and the house of Israel and his companions must be understood. We must not assert that this is due to the fact that the kingdom of Judah did not unite with the house of Israel, like Binyamin [Benjamin]. Because if this were the case, why does he refer to Israel and his companions? It is because the subject of the stick of Judah is the force of the Torah (i.e., the part of Israel that is in conditions to fulfill the Law) which remained in Judah’s hands. And the stick of Joseph is the force of the grace that remained in Joseph’s hands, since it is known that the Kings of Israel were sovereigns who preferred grace. And the prophecy comes and unites the force of the Torah with that of grace. And over them will come a king of David’s dynasty. Namely he will hold the force of the Torah, and because a few of Israel who are borne by the force of the Torah will arrive to this world. And many more are attracted by the force of grace.[7] [My emphasis]

However, both “the force of the Torah” and “the force of grace” are inherent to the very Torah. In other words, they are both forces within the same Torah. When G-d tells the house of Israel that after this covenant He will be their G-d and they will be His people, He declares that before the covenant they were not His people or, more precisely, they were no longer His people.[8] This is the case, I repeat, because the house of Israel received a bill of divorce from G-d (Jer 3:8). Conversely, the house of Judah never stopped being “G-d’s people”.

It must be concluded that the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel constitute two aspects of the same prophecy, i.e. Jeremiah’s “new covenant” is Ezekiel’s “covenant of peace” and both prophets explain under what conditions it will be carried out. Jeremiah gives the time of the implementation of the new covenant: “See, the days are coming…” (31:31), in the age called “the end of days”, i.e., after the “two thousand years of the days of the Messiah” (Babylonian Talmud, Treatise Sanhedrin 97b). And “when those days arrive” (31:33) is the time for the covenant with the house of Israel only, which is after the “two thousand years of the days of the Torah” (ibid.) and at the beginning of the era called the “two thousand years of the days of the Messiah” (ibid.). For its part, Ezekiel’s prophecy determines the conditions and the place where this covenant will occur:

I shall make them into one nation in my own land and on the mountains of Israel, and one king is to be king of them all; they will no longer form two nations, nor be two separate kingdoms. (Ez 37:22)

And also:

My servant David will reign over them, one shepherd for all; they will follow my observances, respect my laws and practice them. (Ez 37:24)

A last example:

⁴⁰I will make an everlasting covenant with them; I will not cease in my efforts for their good, and I will put respect for me into their hearts, so that they turn from me no more.

⁴¹It will be my pleasure to bring about their good, and I will plant them firmly in this land, with all my heart and soul.

Jer 32:40-41

Hence, it is emphasized, that for the covenant to be able to take place at the end of days (at the end of this period), the house of Judah and the house of Israel must be united in the Land of Israel, and for as long as this event does not take place, a new covenant is not possible.

The New Covenant in the New Testament

Before commencing the analysis in this context, I should like to cite the then Cardinal Ratzinger on this topic: To properly define the New Testament idea of covenant, the accounts of the Last Supper are decisive. These present, one might say, the New Testament counterpoint to the history of the covenant sealed at Sinai (cf. Ex 24) and are the basis for the Christian belief in the New Covenant made in Christ. Here I do not wish to have recourse to complicated exegetic discussions on the relation between text and event and their mutual chronological connection, questions that continue to be controversial in their results, but only to analyze what the texts as they are say about the subject.

Later the future Pope presents the foundations on which the theological investigation of the New Covenant should be based: It is indisputable that the four accounts of the Eucharist (Mt 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26) can be divided into two groups according to the composition of the text and the theology expressed in them: the tradition of Matthew and Mark and the tradition that we find in Paul and Luke.

Joseph Ratzinger Benedict XVI, Many Religions–One Covenant: Israel, the Church, and the World. Ignatius Press, 1999, pp. 51-52.

The Four New Testament Sources on the New Covenant

This second part will be devoted to a study of the subject in the New Testament teachings, in order to show that there are no contradictions or differences of conception between the New and the Old Testament. To explain the New Covenant, Christian tradition and the theologians (as was already seen) base themselves on four New Testament sources: Mt 26:27-28, Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:19-20 and 1 Cor 11:24-25.

A Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) document also states the following about the four NT sources in this respect.

At the Last Supper, Jesus intervened decisively in making his blood “the blood of the covenant” (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24), the foundation of the “new covenant” (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). The expression “blood of the covenant” recalls the ratification of the Sinai covenant by Moses (Ex 24:8), suggesting continuity with that covenant. But the words of Jesus also reveal a radical newness, for, whereas the Sinai covenant included a ritual of sprinkling with the blood of sacrificed animals, Christ’s covenant is founded on the blood of a human being who transforms his death as a condemned man into a generous gift, and thereby makes this rupture into a covenant event.

By “new covenant”, Paul and Luke make this newness explicit. Yet, it is in continuity with another Old Testament text, the prophetic message of Jer 31:31-34, which announced that God would establish a “new covenant”. The words of Jesus over the cup proclaim that the prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah is fulfilled in his Passion. The disciples participate in this fulfilment by their partaking of the “supper of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:20). PBC. The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. Rome. 2001 Ch. 2, Section 40.

The verses in Matthew on this subject relate:

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Mt 26:27-28)

The Gospel of Mark in turn states:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. (Mk 14:22-24)

On the other hand, in the other two sources we find a different conception. Luke describes Jesus’s actions during the Passover holiday meal as follows:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” (Lk 22:19-20) [My emphasis]

In the first Letter to the Corinthians, Paul relates Jesus’s acts during the supper, after taking the bread:

… and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor 11:24-25 [My emphasis].

It should be clarified here that when Jesus says to the disciples, according to Luke and Paul, “do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me”, it refers to the contents of the cup, which is in his blood. Contrary to what is supposed and interpreted, the text says literally that the cup is in the blood and not the opposite, i.e., the blood in the cup. Again (as in the case of placing between brackets “the house of Judah” in Jer 31:31) there is a misunderstanding of the text due to a traditional conception that differs from the literal sense of the text. In other words, the New Covenant is the cup, which in turn is in the blood which is the “blood poured out” of Matthew and Mark. According to this, this blood constitutes the blood of the covenant with the house of Israel only, according to Jer 31:33; it is not that of the “new covenant”, i.e. that of Jer 31:31, to which Luke and Paul refer, which is a covenant with both houses: of Israel and of Judah. In short, the three synoptic Gospels and Paul at no time imply even that this blood poured out constitutes the New Covenant.

Jesus’s blood which is poured out (Mt and Mk) forms part of a temporary covenant (Jer 31:33) destined to incorporate the house of Israel in the economy of salvation. In the book The Redemption of Israel…[9] the existence was also shown of two temporary ways of salvation for the two houses of the people of Israel and that each way is the product of a covenant: that of Sinai for the house of Judah and the one described in Jer 31:33 for the house of Israel. It should be emphasized that in the accounts of the Last Supper, neither the synoptic Gospels nor Paul make the pouring out of blood conditional on the fact that Judah has to change its way of salvation.

Likewise, the blood in question constitutes a new covenant for the house of Israel only, and is irrelevant for the house of Judah; in turn, the actual cup is the new covenant (for both houses; see below the subject of the cups in the Passover meal), according to the evangelist Luke and the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians.

From another point of view, a text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission refers to the pouring out of blood as a necessary condition for the acceptance and confirmation of the covenant (in this case, the Sinai covenant). This document states:

The text of Ex 24:3-8 brings to fulfillment the establishment of the covenant announced in 19:3-8. The separation of the blood into two equal parts prepares for the celebration of the rite. Half of the blood is poured on the altar, consecrated to God, while the other half is sprinkled on the assembled Israelites who are now consecrated as a holy people of the Lord and preordained to His service.

The beginning (19:8) and the end (24:3-7) of this great event, the founding of the covenant, are marked by a repetition of the same formula of response on the part of the people: “Everything that the Lord has spoken, we will do.”[10]

For his part, in the Letter to the Hebrews, Paul writes:

“… to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Heb 12:24)

This is the explanation of the cup (the New Covenant) in the poured out blood of Jesus. Namely, Jesus’s blood is not the blood of the New Covenant, but contains it or has it implicitly. In this sense, Jesus is the mediator between the law of Sinai for the Jews and the covenant of Jer 31:33 for the Christians (both temporary), and the final new covenant (31:31), that cannot be broken, is represented by the cup of the New Covenant.

It has already been shown that, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34, there are two covenants, one with the house of Israel, which has already been carried out, and another with the two houses (the new one) which will come into force in the future, when both houses are reunited in the land of Israel. Furthermore, the covenant for which Jesus is responsible at the Last Supper is sealed in the presence of the twelve apostles, from which it could be inferred that this is a covenant for the twelve tribes of the people of Israel. It should be noted that at the Last Supper Jesus does not establish any covenant; he merely states, or rather teaches, that the “cup” is the “new covenant”, in the case of Luke 22:19-20 and in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 (“in my blood, which is poured out for you”), i.e. that the poured out blood of Jesus, as the scene is described by Matthew and Mark, is also the blood recounted by Luke and 1 Corinthians and is the only common denominator of the four sources (which is not the case for the cup). This is the blood of the covenant to which Jer 31:33 refers for the reinsertion (re-grafting: Rom 11:17-21) of the house of Israel in the people of G-d and it does not affect the apostles of the house of Judah, i.e. the apostles who represent the tribes of Judah, Levi and Benjamin, among other reasons because they are circumcised, as Paul teaches in Gal 5:2-3:

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.” To be removed

However, as narrated in Luke and in 1 Corinthians, the cup of the new covenant, which is destined for the twelve tribes, is the poured out blood of Jesus; i.e., the cup is inherent in this blood, because without this blood there cannot be a new covenant. Indeed, with the inclusion of the house of Israel in the people of G-d a vital stage is fulfilled in the possibility of the implementation of the new and definitive covenant; the next stage has to be the reunification of the two houses in the land of Israel. Attention must be paid absolutely to the fact that the blood is not of the cup and nor is it in it, but the contrary: the cup is in the blood (“poured out” of Mt and Mk), and their words are directed to the twelve because this “new covenant” will be sealed when the twelve tribes are together, just as the twelve disciples are together in the Passover Meal. Jesus, on this occasion, initiates the preparation of the conditions so the new covenant can be implemented; i.e., he begins the process of recovery of the ten tribes of the house of Israel (Mt 15:24), who only when they are recovered, i.e. reintegrated in the monotheistic faith, will they be in conditions to unite, or rather re-unite with the house of Judah in the land of Israel, and only then will it be possible to implement the New Covenant.

III

The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the New Covenant

The Catholic Church and Christianity in general do not distinguish either as a historic reality or as a theological truth that the people of Israel is made up of two houses or kingdoms that are separate and alienated from each other. Consequently, they do not see the necessity either for unification of both as a sine qua non condition for the redemption of the people of Israel and the world, even though the Holy Scriptures are very explicit in this respect. The proof of this is that the Church defines itself as Verus Israel or as the “new people of G-d (it makes sure to recall this in the Nostra Aetate Declaration, ch. 4., On the Jewish religion) and this expresses a conception of exclusivity. For this reason it cannot correctly understand the prophecies on the New Covenant.

Thus, when it teaches about the new and definitive covenant, it cites Jer 31:31-34 as if the prophet was speaking of a sole and unique covenant, and falls into a situation which is also paradoxical. In Jeremiah 31:31, it is emphasized, the recipients of this New Covenant are the house of Israel and the house of Judah and, as prophesied by Ezekiel 37:21-22; 25-26, this covenant will come into force when they are together in the land of Israel. If the Church does not recognize itself as the house of Israel, and taking into account that the house of Judah (the Jews) is not in the same covenant as the Church, it can be affirmed then that the “covenant” that the Church maintains joins it to G-d is not the covenant prophesied by Jeremiah. Or alternatively, if the Church is in a real covenant and, by definition, does not belong to the house of Judah, it would have to define itself as the house of Israel. If this can be accepted, then the paradox no longer exists and, therefore, it is under the specific covenant that Jeremiah 31:33 assigns to the house of Israel only. This is already another, temporary, covenant, whose function consists in the reintroduction of the house of Israel into the people of Israel, from which, it will be remembered, it was expelled in the year 720 CE because it committed idolatry and did not recant.

From another perspective, if the Church does not recognize itself at the house of Israel and takes this New Covenant for itself (in place of the house of Israel), we are again facing the doctrine of the substitution of the “old” Israel by the “new people of Israel”, but this time replacing the house of Israel and not the house of Judah. Here we see that the doctrine of substitution has far deeper roots than could have been imagined initially.

It should be remembered that in interpretation or drawing of theological conclusions from passages from biblical texts, it is essential not to distort the literal text. This being clarified, we can begin to analyze sections 64, 66, 577, 578 and 782 of the Catechism.

Section 64:

Through the prophets, G-d forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all (cf. Is. 2:2-4), to be written on their hearts (cf. Jer 31:31-34; Hb 10:16). The prophets proclaim a radical redemption of the People of God, purification from all their infidelities (cf. Ez 36), a salvation which will include all the nations (cf. Is. 49:5-6; 53:11). Above all, the poor and humble of the Lord (cf. So. 2:3) will bear this hope. Such holy women as Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Judith and Esther kept alive the hope of Israel’s salvation. The purest figure among them is Mary (cf. Lk 1:38).

Certainly, the hope of salvation of the people of G-d (i.e. the two houses of the people of Israel) lies in a new and eternal covenant, as already analyzed. However, this is not a covenant “intended for all”. The text brings as proof the prophecy of Isaiah:

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem: and it shall come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established as the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills. And all nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say: ‘Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; And He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. (Is 2:1-4).

This passage does not speak of any covenant for all, and even less of a “new” covenant. It has already been seen that the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah is for the house of Judah and the house of Israel, i.e., for the people of Israel only, and, consequently, it is not “intended for all”, but it does include the Gentiles that the house of Israel adds to the people of G-d, as taught by the Babylonian Talmud in Tractate Pesachim 87b and the New Testament. However, for all who do not belong to the people of Israel the covenant that G-d made with Noah applies (Gn 9:1-19) and that Jewish tradition summarizes in seven laws, whose fulfillment is the condition for their salvation.[11]

On the other hand, the facts related in the prophecy of Isaiah 2:2-4, which the Catechism quotes and that will occur at the end of days, will take place on the Temple Mount of Jerusalem (the house of G-d), and this is not a symbolic place, as the Church teaches, but a place in a very concrete and sacred city.[12]

The text then goes on to quote Jeremiah 31:31-34 and does not pay attention to the fact that the prophet is referring to two different covenants. Again, what will be written on the hearts is not the New Covenant but only the covenant with the house of Israel. This, I repeat, is not the New Covenant that cannot be broken, i.e. an eternal covenant, as indicated in the Catechism.

Finally, when the Catechism writes about the purification from all infidelities and quotes Ezekiel 36, it does not take into account the fact that the prophet is referring to the purification of the house of Israel only, and not to that of the house of Judah.

Section 66:

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 ([Dei Verbum] DV 4). 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.

Again the Church does not discern that Jeremiah 31:31-33 is prophesying about two covenants. If the Church considers that G-d’s historic and redeeming plan (the Christian economy) is implemented in the “new and definitive covenant that will never pass away”, it must take into account that this covenant is sealed with the house of Judah and with the house of Israel; and considering that the Church is not the house of Judah, it should, at least, define itself as a part of the people of Israel called the house of Israel. Yet this is not the case, since in its doctrine the Church considers itself, as already seen, as the Verus Israel or the “new people of Israel” (cf., for instance, the Lumen Gentium Constitution, of Vatican Council II, or the Nostra Aetate Declaration, section IV, On the Jews, by the same Council), in its entirety.

Thus, if the Church excludes from the New Covenant de facto (and de jure) the house of Judah, for which there is no longer any room, as distinct and autonomous entity, within the Verus Israel, then the prophecy is wrong and not only because of this, but also because it is intended for entities that the Church does not recognize in general as depositories of the New Covenant (the houses of Judah and Israel). And even if the Church finally recognizes itself as house of Israel, it still leaves the house of Judah outside. There can be no other interpretation here; this text is very clear.

If the prophecy in its entirety is accepted, it must then be acknowledged that the New Covenant has not yet been implemented. For this to be possible in the future it is essential that Christianity recognizes itself as the house of Israel. When at least a large part goes to live in the land of Israel (since the house of Judah is already there to a great extent), only then will the conditions be established so that the covenant can be concluded and implemented and the economy of salvation be fulfilled. As long as this does not happen, the New Covenant cannot take place. Therefore, the Revelation is not yet complete, although certainly it is undergoing a process of implementation and development.

Another way of interpreting section 66 is as follows: the main characteristic of the new and definitive covenant is that it cannot be broken; however, the covenant of which Christianity is a part, as has already noted, has been permanently broken by the individuals who take this way of salvation, as well as by Christian institutions, organizations and states. It is not because this covenant declares itself “new and definitive” that it is so; for it to acquire this characteristic it must pass the test of historical reality. This statement of section 66 of the Catechism does not bring any Scriptural proof. If it is basing itself on Jeremiah 31:31, then it does not coincide with what the prophet says.

As regards section 577 I wish to emphasize the following: at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus gives the following solemn warning when he presents the Law given by G-d at Sinai on the occasion of the First Covenant, in light of the grace of the New Covenant:

“Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law, until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:17-19).

I will merely point out that the Catechism compares the old covenant with the New Covenant, of grace, unlike the old covenant, which is under the severity of the Law. In this case, the Church makes a dichotomous difference and starts with the assumption that the old covenant does not participate in the divine grace, and this is certainly incorrect. Moreover, if the particular trait of the New Covenant is grace, it can certainly not refer to the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31, which does not refer to this characteristic; and, although it can be inferred that grace is implicit in this New Covenant, in principle this trait cannot be attributed to it when there is no literal mention of it in the text.

Section 578 states the following:

Jesus, Israel’s Messiah and therefore the greatest in the kingdom of heaven (after the Father), was to fulfill the Law by keeping it in its all-embracing detail – according to his own words. He is in fact the only one who could keep it perfectly (cf. Jn 8:46). On their own admission the Jews were never able to observe the Law in its entirety without violating the least of its precepts (cf. Jn 7:19; Acts 13:38-41; 15-10). This is why every year on the Day of Atonement the children of Israel ask God’s forgiveness for their transgressions of the Law. The Law indeed makes up one inseparable whole, and St. James recalls, “Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” (Jas 2:10; cf. Gal 3:10; 5:3).

It should be emphasized that the statement made by the New Testament in Jas 2:10 (cf. Gal 3:10; 5:3) is an opinion not shared by Jewish tradition. Firstly, because for the Jews of the Diaspora it is impossible to fulfill the laws and decrees relating to the land of Israel, such as, for instance, letting the land rest in the seventh year; nor has it been possible to offer sacrifices since the destruction of the Temple. There also exist commandments deriving from rabbinical legislation that contradict the declaration of James 2:10, and whose observance is considered equivalent to the fact of having observed all the commandments, such as studying the Torah, wearing tzitzit (fringes of eight threads on a ritual garment which has four corners) or living in the land of Israel. On the other hand, when the New Covenant is confirmed most of the obligations of the Law will be suspended, as well as almost all the festivals, as explained in the book “Two Ways One Redemption”.[13]

In turn, Section 762 states:

The remote preparation for this gathering together of the People of God begins when he calls Abraham and promises that he will become the father of a great people (cf. Gn 12:2; 15:5-6). Its immediate preparation begins with Israel’s election as the People of God (cf. Ex 19:5-6; Dt 7:6). By this election, Israel is to be the sign of the future gathering of all nations. (cf. Is 2:2-5; Mi 4:1-4). But the prophets accuse Israel of breaking the covenant and behaving like a prostitute (cf. Hos 1; Is 1:2-4; Jer 2; etc.). They announce a new and eternal covenant (cf. Jer 31:31-34; Is 55:3). “Christ instituted this New Covenant” (LG 9).

On this a critical observation must be made: the prophets accuse the house of Israel and the house of Judah of having breached the covenant. However, G-d breaks His covenant with the house of Israel only, and not with the house of Judah (Jer 3:9 and Hos 1:7). This must be very clear when referring to “Israel” as an abstract entity and to the “house of Judah” (the Jews) as a concrete entity. The punishment for the sin of idolatry, which consists in having received a “bill of divorce” from G-d, is received only by the house of Israel. Certainly G-d subsequently grants His grace (hesed) in order to be able to reincorporate it in the people of Israel, or rather to join it to the house of Judah (Ez 37:15-18; Jer 31:31), but this is another question. I emphasize, the “new and eternal covenant” (Jer 31:31) will be made with the house of Judah and with the house of Israel when both are in the land of Israel, according to the prophecy (Ez 37:21-22; 25-26), and it must be taken into account that, from the time that Jeremiah received this message from G-d in order to prophesy it, they were never together in the Promised Land. Therefore, it could never have been fulfilled, because the conditions were not in place.

However, the covenant that “Christ instituted … (LG)” is the covenant appearing in Jer 31:33; it was made with the house of Israel only and, as already explained, its function is to reintegrate it with the people adding also the Gentiles which, according to the Talmud, is a function of the house of Israel (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Pesachim 87b).

What this section of the Catechism is teaching is a doctrine of substitution, in contradiction with Jesus’s teachings.

In conclusion: The analysis of this theme further reinforces one of the main conclusions deriving from the model set down in my previous book, i.e., the urgent need for Christians and Jews to mutually recognize each other as two separate parts of G-d’s people. Only when this happens and both physically share the Promised Land will it be possible to confirm the union of the two houses, or the “two sticks” of Ezekiel’s prophecy, and then G-d will make the new covenant with “the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31). Any other theological and exegetic speculation leads to contradictions between the doctrinal conception and the Holy Scriptures, as actually occurs.

In this chapter I have attempted to strengthen the proposition that Christianity must stop considering itself exclusively the Verus Israel and recognize itself as part of this whole with the Jews. The Jews, for their part, must realize the need to recognize their brethren of the house of Israel and seek in daily action their return to the Promised Land (“the house of the Father” in the Parable of the Prodigal Son), as a sine qua non condition for the fulfillment of the New Covenant and for the redemption of Israel and of the world.

The “flaws” or defects that I have described in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and not only by them, but also by theologians and exegetes, derives from the work using a “key of two” (the understanding that the Holy Scriptures are divided into the world of Jews and Gentiles) and not a “key of three”, i.e. into house of Judah, house of Israel and Gentiles. With a vision of the Holy Scriptures using a “key of three” it is impossible to arrive at interpretations far or disconnected from the literal content of the sacred texts. Moreover, when the Church interprets Jer 31:31-33, it tends also to remove the house of Judah (the Jews).

It must be clarified that this reading using a “key of two” and not of three also exists, in general, in contemporary Jewish exegesis and theology.

The cups of the Passover Meal

The analysis of the cups of the Passover Meal is designed to confirm a new perspective that reinforces the conclusions reached above on this subject. It must be very clear that the so-called “Last Supper” of Christian tradition is, first and foremost, a Jewish Passover meal (Pesach Seder). This event, which inaugurates the commemoration of the Passover, is full of rituals. Here we will consider only the aspects related to the four cups of wine that must be drunk on this occasion. While the object of this ritual is the reminder (anamnesis) of the liberation of the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt, it is also designed to strengthen the belief in the final liberation of the people at the end of days: it is a ritual of remembrance and of hope.

At the Pesach Seder four cups of the fruit of the vine (wine) are drunk: the first, at the beginning of the rite; the second, at the beginning of the meal, before the blessing on the matzah (the unleavened bread) according to the Pharisee ritual conserved to this day in Judaism (in the Essene Pesach Seder, the bread is blessed before the wine); the third cup is blessed after the end of the meal and reciting of the grace after meals; then a cup (which is not drunk by the participants in the meal) is poured out for Elijah the prophet, and finally, at the end of the ritual, the fourth cup is drunk.

For this analysis, I will take the four New Testament sources on which the Christian tradition and the theologians base themselves: Matthew 26:27-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25.

I will begin the analysis with the Gospel of Matthew, which states:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take it; this is my body. Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matt. 26:26-28) [My emphasis]

It should be clarified that when the evangelist says “while they were eating”, he is referring to the foods eaten before the actual meal (Karpas), when the unleavened bread (matzah) is not yet eaten. Then a blessing is said on the second cup and, subsequently, a blessing is said on the matzah, and the Passover meal begins. However, taking into account the narratives of Matthew and Mark, the alternative suggested by Prof. David Flusser should be considered: that this is a ritual according to the Essene tradition, in which the bread precedes the wine.[14] Here too this would also be the second cup. In this case, the Essene tradition should be chosen, since the second cup is drunk after the blessing on the bread.

Today, the Catholic formula of the consecration of the Eucharist is carried out according to the Essene ritual, while the Orthodox Church continues the Pharisee ritual (first the wine and then the bread).

The Gospel of Mark, following the same course as above, states:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my Body.” Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. (Mk 14:22-24) [My emphasis]

In the other two sources we find a different conception. Luke describes Jesus’s actions during the Passover holiday meal in the following words:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” (Lk 22: 19-20) [My emphasis and underlining]

Paul, in turn, in the first Letter to the Corinthians, relates what Jesus did during the supper, after taking the bread:

… and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood. Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor 11:24-25 [My emphasis and underlining].

In essence, it should be seen that, during the Last Supper, the “cup of the Covenant”, according to Matthew and Mark, is offered and drunk during the supper, and in these accounts reference is made only to the “blood of the Covenant”; while, according to Luke and Paul, when they refer to the “new Covenant” this is an event that takes place after the supper, i.e. this is the third or the fourth cup (I will present a more precise analysis of this cup below) that is drunk in the Passover Seder and, in this specific case, at the Last Supper. It has already been seen also that the New Covenant is not Christ’s blood but the actual cup.

The fourth cup is drunk after serving the cup intended for the prophet Eliyahu (Elijah) and at the end of the Passover meal. In reality, it is not related directly with the supper (meal = seudah) itself. However, it is not only a reminder (anamnesis), but also an act of faith in the future final and definitive redemption. Here it should be considered that the third cup was drunk at the end of the supper, while the fourth cup will be drunk when the New Covenant take shape and G-d takes (אני לוקח), in the present, for Himself, the entire people of Israel (the two houses and the Gentiles), and the confirmation of the New Covenant. The fourth cup in reality is not drunk (only raised) at least by Jesus (and perhaps, not by his disciples either) and will be drunk only at the end of days, when the New Covenant comes to pass.

Other considerations

1) After the differences were shown between Matthew-Mark and Luke-Paul and the “blood of the covenant” and the cup as New Covenant, it was also seen that the covenant in Matthew-Mark takes place during the Passover meal, while the New Covenant in Luke-Paul occurs after the meal, i.e. with the fourth cup of the Passover Seder. Taking this into account, it can be considered that the two versions of the facts related by the four sources refer to the same Passover meal and are not alternative (or optional) or contradictory accounts, but relate two moments of the same event. This being the case, the Passover meal has a relevance to this day not sufficiently appreciated in the pedagogy (and the didactics) on the existence of the two covenants. In the same way, I am not attempting here to discover (or choose) which of the two accounts is the true account, but to show that they do not refer only to two moments of the same and unique Passover meal, but this teaches about the establishment of two covenants: one made during the meal and the other, after the supper and the grace after meals.

The Church, correctly, celebrates the covenant during the meal (Jer 31:33, i.e., with the house of Israel only); this is the Christian rite. It does not celebrate the New Covenant made after the meal, since the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah 31:31 has not yet come to pass in the history of Israel. This covenant will take place “after the meal”, in the future; but, nonetheless, in the Pesach Seder, i.e. in the celebration of the Passover, in a new meal, or more correctly, at the end of days. In this sense, it will really be “the Last Supper” of the Passover, since as explained in Chapter IX of the book Two Ways One Redemption, not only the Passover meal of the celebration of the Passover will be suspended but also most of the Jewish festivals.

From another, slightly more esoteric, perspective, we might say that the Last Supper is still being celebrated. In fact, the celebration of the Mass (the Eucharist) is not only an anamnesis, but also a concrete meal that is not yet concluded; a long meal of over two millennia, during which we had been waiting to drink the fourth cup, that of the New Covenant, as analyzed above. In other words, it can be considered that during this current journey of the two separated parts of the people of Israel towards the final redemption, we are still participating in a meal that began two thousand years ago for the house of Israel; and that this meal will soon be concluded, when G-d makes a covenant with the people of Israel united in its two houses (together with the Gentiles who are added), in the land of Israel, in the New Covenant taught by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31 and Ez 37:21-22; 26-28).

2) The ritual of the celebration of the Jewish Passover meal should be considered as the remembrance not only of the liberation from slavery and idolatry and the “narrowness” (Egypt-Metzar), but also of the acceptance of the “amplitude of the G-d of Israel (Merchavya) of monotheism. Israel’s different falls and subsequent rises throughout history have not yet ended.

3) We will consider here the sequence of the rituals of the Last Supper as regards the blessing on the bread and the taking or raising of the cup in the quotations of Luke and 1 Corinthians. When the sources relate that Jesus blesses the matzah and raises the cup of the New Covenant, this does not mean that the second action is an immediate continuation of the first. Within this ritual, the Passover meal elapses between these two moments: the blessing on the bread is made at the beginning of the meal (after drinking of the first and second cups), and the third and fourth cups are drunk at the end, i.e. “after supper”.

It should be taken into consideration that the texts of Luke and 1 Corinthians are extremely clear. Both specify that Jesus, after taking the bread and making a blessing, i.e. making the blessing on the matzah, took the cup “after supper”; i.e. these are two different points in time. Thus, as stressed by Luke and Paul, from another perspective, these are the third and fourth cups, after the Passover meal. In Matthew and Mark the normal sequence of the Essene rite is stressed, since Jesus first blesses the bread and then blesses the wine, without interruption. While in the two other sources there is no mention of whether the blessing on the bread precedes the blessing on the wine, i.e. that of the second cup, I have not found any argument that leads to assume that this was not the case, always according to the Essene rite.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also points out the teaching of the two moments of the Passover ritual:

In the Old Covenant bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. But they also received a new significance in the context of the Exodus: the unleavened bread that Israel eats every year at Passover commemorates the haste of the departure that liberated them from Egypt. The remembrance of the manna in the desert will always recall to Israel that it lives by the bread of the Word of God (Dt 8:3) (this is not what the text of Deuteronomy 8:3 says, but that man will not live by bread alone, but also by what comes out of the mouth of G-d). Their daily bread is the fruit of the Promised Land, the pledge of God’s faithfulness to his promises. The “cup of blessing” (1 Cor 10:16), at the end of the Jewish Passover meal, adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1334).

The text goes on to clarify what this “new and definitive” meaning is:

By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. Jesus’ passing over to his father by his death and Resurrection, the new Passover, is anticipated in the Supper [after the supper, not during the supper, as confirmation of the New Covenant] and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the Church in the glory of the kingdom.” (Ibid., 1340) [My emphasis and also, the addition in brackets].

It should be noted that the “new and definitive” meaning of the celebration of the Last Supper would not appear to be such in relation to the Jewish Passover, since the Catechism recognizes in the Jewish celebration “the eschatological dimension of the messianic expectation”. “Jesus’ passing over to his father (as Messiah son of Joseph) by his death and Resurrection” can be considered by Judaism as one more perspective that complements the eschatological conception of the celebration of the Jewish Passover, but it is in no way an addition of a new essence, as new and definitive dimension, since this messianic content is inherent in the eschatological content of the Jewish Passover. See, for instance, Rabbi Haim Luzzato, Drushei “Vesamta otam, etc….” And the book “Yesod Ha’Avodah, part IV, ch. 1.

4) We will call the sources of Matthew-Mark A, and those of Luke-1 Corinthians, sources B.

The meal during the night of Passover, in which Jesus and the twelve apostles participate, was called the “Last Supper”, and this is really the case if it is considered the last meal before Jesus’s arrest and crucifixion. However, the New Testament informs that this meeting, which inaugurates the beginning of the messianic era (” the two thousand years of the days of the Messiah” Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 97b), ends with another supper in the future, at the end of that period, when “the kingdom of G-d comes” (Lk 22:18) or “the Kingdom of my father” (Mt 26:29):

For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God. After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” (Lk 22:16-18)

Here, Jesus is referring to the fourth cup, since when the Kingdom of G-d comes the Jewish Passover and the Catholic Eucharist will no longer be celebrated.

There is similar wording in Matthew on drinking the fruit of the vine, but he does not speak of no longer eating.

I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. (Mt 26:29)

Here too the reference is to the fourth cup.

Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts are uniform, even further reinforcing the fact that both sources are teaching about two moments of the “Last Supper”. This should be stressed so that we can correctly place the theological and more precisely eschatological dimension of the Last Supper, i.e. not as an ultimate act but, on the contrary, as the beginning of the process of redemption, that will end with the supper in the kingdom of G-d.

Thus it is confirmed that there are two suppers. However, in the first Passover meal (that called Last Supper), sources A and B teach about two different historic moments. Gospels A talk about the moment when the Passover is being celebrated, before Jesus’s sacrifice while those of source B are teaching also about the future event, at the end of days: the fulfillment of the New Covenant.

In the four sources under analysis, the bread is the same, the cups are not. It is interesting to note that in sources A the contents of the cup, which is (or represents) the blood of the Covenant (that of Jer 31:33), are drunk. However, sources B do not relate that they are drunk; this is because it is the New Covenant, which has not yet been passed, according to Jer 31:31.

As we read in the Catechism (paragraphs 1323, 1334 and 1340), the redemption of the world has not yet arrived, we are on our way (on a pilgrimage) towards it. In this the Church agrees with Judaism.

Jesus’s Supper is the beginning of the process of final redemption, and in some way will be celebrated again, the last time, at the end of the redemption process. After this, the Passover will no longer be celebrated, because the commemoration, both Jewish and Christian, will not be necessary to maintain the faith, since the entire world will recognize G-d; nor will there be an expectation of the final salvation, since this will already have been fulfilled. The Catechism is clear in this conclusion when, quoting the Sacrosanctum Concilium, it explains that, at the Last Supper celebrated by Jesus, “the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us” (SC 47) (Catechism, 1323), (my emphasis).

In Jewish tradition there is the conception that the fourth cup is related to the future and definitive redemption of the people of Israel, among other various complementary interpretations. For instance in the book Elijah Rabba, section 472, paragraph 12, three interpretations are offered on the cups of the Passover Seder, including the following:

The first cup is in memory of the fact that G-d chose us [Israel] in the days of Abraham; the second cup is gratitude to G-d who redeemed us from Egyptian slavery; the third cup is for the time that the Exile lasts and the fourth cup is for the future redemption. [My emphasis].

From another viewpoint, the fourth cup of the Seder recalls G-d’s action of “I will take you [velakachti, the people of Israel that was in bondage in Egypt] to Me for a people” (Ex 6:7), which according to the rabbis, refers to the receiving of the Torah at Sinai; i.e., it is related to the confirmation of their Sinai Covenant, and from the eschatological perspective, to the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 and in the New Testament to the New Covenant of Luke and 1 Corinthians.

In turn, the other three cups are related to G-d’s pronouncement in Exodus 6:6: “I will bring” them out (VeHotzeiti), “I will deliver” them (VeHitzalti), and “I will redeem” them (VeGaalti). On the four cups, see, for instance, Rabbeinu Behaye on Ex 6:8.

Another aspect that should be considered is whether the New Covenant relates to the third cup; or, rather, whether this cup celebrates the New Covenant and, in turn, whether this event takes (or will take) place “after the supper”, i.e., outside the Passover meal, although within the Pesach Seder.

For its part, the ritual of the Eucharist is a memorial (anamnesis) of the Passover meal in itself, and in this sense it cannot refer to either of the last two cups, since these are drunk “after the supper”. Furthermore, as was seen, the fourth cup is the cup of the New Covenant.

Taking this into consideration, it must be concluded that Christianity does not celebrate in any way the New Covenant taught by Luke and 1 Corinthians, but Christ’s covenant according to Matthew-Mark, i.e. the covenant of Jeremiah 31:33. This being the case, it is confirmed that the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah 31:31 has not yet taken place. When G-d carries out the New Covenant, this will have the characteristics described in Jer 31:31 and Ez 37:26-27, which, among other features, will be with both houses together in the Promised Land or land of Israel, and as is well known, this has not yet happened.

From another perspective, it should be taken into account that Jesus drinks only the first two cups and postpones drinking of the two last cups until when the redemption is complete. The Synoptic Gospels state:

Then he took a cup, and when he had returned thanks, he gave it to them. ‘Drink all of you from this,’ he said, ‘for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, which is to be poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. From now on, I tell you, I shall not drink wine until the day I drink the new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father.” (Mt 26:27-29 (Jerusalem Bible and the RSV)

According to Mark:

Then he took a cup, and when he had returned thanks he gave it to them, and all drank from it, and he said to them, ‘This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, which is to be poured out for many. I tell you solemnly, I shall not drink any more wine until the day I drink the new wine in the kingdom of God.’ (Mk 14:23-24 (Jerusalem Bible and the RSV)

Luke, in turn, says:

When the hour came he took his place at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, ‘I have longed to eat this passover with you before I suffer; because, I tell you, I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God’. Then, taking a cup, he gave thanks and said, ‘Take this and share it among you, because from now on, I tell you, I shall not drink wine until the kingdom of God comes’. Then he took some bread, and when he had given thanks, broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which will be given for you; do this as a memorial of me’. He did the same with the cup after supper, and said, This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which will be poured out for you. And yet, here with me on the table is the hand of the man who betrays me. (Lk 22: 14-21)

The Pontifical Biblical Commission, naturally, accepts the Greek source of the Jerusalem Bible in relation to the difference between the texts in Mt 26:28 and Mk 14:24 and the texts in Lk 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25, as regards the “blood of the covenant” and “the new covenant”. This work accepts and identifies with the translation of the Jerusalem Bible and the PBC reference, in the document already cited, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible:

40… At the Last Supper, Jesus intervened decisively in making his blood “the blood of the covenant” (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24), the foundation of the “new covenant” (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). The expression “blood of the covenant” recalls the ratification of the Sinai covenant by Moses (Ex 24:8), suggesting continuity with that covenant. But the words of Jesus also reveal a radical newness, for, whereas the Sinai covenant included a ritual of sprinkling with the blood of sacrificed animals, Christ’s covenant is founded on the blood of a human being who transforms his death as a condemned man into a generous gift, and thereby makes this rupture into a covenant event.

By “new covenant”, Paul and Luke make this newness explicit. Yet, it is in continuity with another Old Testament text, the prophetic message of Jr 31:31-34, which announced that God would establish a “new covenant”. The words of Jesus over the cup proclaim that the prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah is fulfilled in his Passion. The disciples participate in this fulfilment by their partaking of the “supper of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:20). PBC. The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. Vatican. 2001

In Mt 26:27 Jesus blesses (returned thanks on) the wine and gives it to them; but according to the Jewish tradition that is maintained to this day, if he blesses it he must drink it before distributing it to the others. However, when in Lk 22:19-20 and in 1 Cor 11:24-25, reference is made to the third and the fourth cup, Jesus does not drink; nor does he render thanks or bless the wine that he gives to his disciples. Since this was the Passover meal, the disciples must have drunk the third and fourth cup and one of them must have recited a blessing over it.

According to Matthew, at the supper Jesus stops drinking “the fruit of the vine”, i.e., wine, after he drank only the first and the second cups. He will drink the third and the fourth cup only when the process of redemption that he inaugurated is completed at the end of days.

In Luke and in the First Letter to the Corinthians, reference is made to the third and the fourth cups as the New Covenant. Mark also relates that Jesus stops drinking wine, after the second cup and announces that he will only drink wine again when he drinks again in the “kingdom of G-d”. The difference with Matthew’s account is in that he will again drink the last two cups in “the kingdom of G-d”. In the texts of Matthew and Mark it is clear that Jesus drinks the first and second cups; however, according to the Gospel of Luke the situation is less clear. In any case, it is obvious that Jesus does not drink the cups of the New Covenant, the third and the fourth, and he is waiting to do so when the “Kingdom of G-d” (according to Mark and Luke) or “the Kingdom of my Father” comes, and then he will drink it again with the twelve apostles who participated in the “Last Supper”. While for the apostles who shared the supper this was a complete event and ritual, it was not so for Jesus, who did not drink all the cups of the Pesach ritual.

Is the New Covenant the third or the fourth cup of the meal?

Here I will analyze in more detail what the two last cups of the Passover meal represent; specifically, I will endeavor to verify the function of each of them in the process of redemption.

Once I have shown that the sacrament of the Eucharist (the supper of the Lord or “Last Supper”) consists in the drinking of the second of the four cups of the Pesach Seder and that the New Covenant is related to the cup drunk after the supper, i.e. that the Church does not commemorate the institution of the New Covenant, since this has not yet taken place, but a provisional Covenant like that which appears in Jer 31:33, the dilemma is presented of determining whether the New Covenant is symbolized by the third or the fourth cup of the Pesach ritual. This question arises because these cups are drunk “after supper” (Lk 22:19-20 and 1 Cor 11:24-25), as occurs in the Jewish ritual.

A first difference between these two cups is that the third cup is drunk immediately after grace after meals, at the end of the supper, and is connected to these blessings, i.e., it is still connected with the actual meal, even though it no longer constitutes a part of it. On the other hand, the fourth cup is drunk after reciting of the Hallel (the hallelujahs, i.e. the psalms established by Jewish tradition). While it forms part of the ritual, it is not directly connected with the meal. If we interpret what is described in Lk 22:19-20 and 1 Cor 11:24-25 according to the order (or sequence) of the Passover rite, the cup of the New Covenant would have to be the third one, because there is no indication in the account of a jump from the third to the fourth.

On the other hand, if the New Covenant consists in a cup that appears after ending of the meal and saying grace after the meal, the third cup that still maintains a connection with that meal would also seem to have the function of a contact, a bridge between the Passover meal and the fourth cup. A difference is observed between both in the accounts on the New Covenant in Lk and in 1 Cor.

In 1 Cor there is a cup that the apostles (the twelve) drink during all the future celebrations of the Passover and that fulfills the function of anamnesis. However, this ritual with which Jesus charges the apostles does not pass to the Church tradition, in the sense that there is not a memorial in the third cup, since it is not drunk in the Eucharist. In Luke (the eating of the bread is for a memorial) there is no account of the apostles drinking a cup after having finished the meal or of this cup of the New Covenant serving as memorial (anamnesis). This might also mean that 1 Cor is talking about the third cup and Luke about the fourth. This implies that both the third and the fourth cup belong to the New Covenant. It is thus clear that the third cup is drunk as a preparation of the New Covenant at the beginning of the two thousand years of the days of the Messiah, according to the Jewish tradition and the fourth cup will be drunk at the time of the confirmation of the New Covenant of the end of days.

This being the case, Jesus may have drunk the third cup and will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until the coming of the kingdom of G-d (Lk 22:16-18), when he will drink the fourth cup. In Mt 26:2, Jesus is more explicit: he will again drink the fruit of the vine with the apostles in the kingdom of his Father:

From now on, I tell you, I shall not drink wine until the day I drink the new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father. Mt 26:29

Since both cups are connected with the final redemption, or more exactly, with the process of redemption, the third cup must symbolize the start of this way, “I will redeem them” (וגאלתי), and the fourth cup is connected with the end of the process or way of redemption, “and I will take them” (ולקחתי). Obviously, in Jewish tradition the fourth cup also symbolizes the future redemption (see for instance, the Book Elijah Rabbah, section 472, of Rabbi Eliyahu Shapira 1660-1712, where he explains that the fourth cup is for the future redemption).

In short, replying to the question of the beginning of this section, both cups are intimately connected with the New Covenant. However, the New Covenant itself is symbolized only by the fourth cup, which will be drunk at the end of days when G-d confirms it to His people, Israel, constituted by the union of its two houses and the Gentiles who are added.

Another observation that should be taken into account: the verb “to take” (“he took”) for the fourth cup is the same as that used by the prophecy of Ezekiel 37 for the union of the house of Judah with the house of Israel:

Thus says the Lord G-d: 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 it, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in my hand. Ez 37:20 [My emphasis].

Two ways of salvation for the people of G-d 09.11.2011

Preface

In an article by journalist Jean Duhaime, reporting on the symposium held at the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council Nostra Aetate Declaration, in 2005, he recounts that:

At the beginning of his speech, Cardinal Kasper read out a letter from Pope Benedict XVI. (On the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate):

The Pope expressed his hope that “in theological dialogue and in everyday contacts and collaboration, Christians and Jews will offer an ever more compelling shared witness to the One God and his commandments, the sanctity of life, the promotion of human dignity…

Cardinal Kasper subsequently emphasized the theological mission awaiting each new generation. We have fragments, but not yet a fully elaborated theology of Judaism, and we are also waiting for – if it is at all possible – a Jewish theology of Christianity. Ibid.

The contribution of this chapter to the theological dialogue consists in concentrating on various examples of the New Testament teaching on the existence of two ways of redemption, as already seen in various parts of my previous work (A. Yoel Ben Arye, op.cit.) and in a large part of this work, and furthermore, to add new perspectives in the forming of a Jewish theology of Christianity, which Cardinal Walter Kasper sees as the theological mission of the new generation. It is also recalled that the contribution to the forming of a Jewish theology of Christianity that I seek to make in this work consists in remembering the following: the people of G-d is made up of two houses or kingdoms, the house of Judah and the house of Israel. These houses are currently separated and traversing different ways of salvation and in the last two thousand years Gentiles have also been added the house of Israel (Babylonian Talmud. Pesachim 87b), for their salvation too.

It is well known that the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, as expressed in the Catholic Church’s documents and especially documents of the former Pope, not only do not conceive, but also do not accept the existence of two ways of salvation, i.e., one for the Gentiles as expressed in Rom 10:9 and another for the Jews also clearly implied throughout the New Testament, as will be seen in some examples below.

Introduction

This section will seek to contribute to the two themes proposed by Cardinal W. Kasper, i.e. to the theological dialogue and in this context to deal with an aspect of our Jewish vision of Christianity, based on an interpretation of the New Testament, which attempts to be, on this subject, more consistent than those expressed until now.

From the very beginnings of Christianity, the Church Fathers, who came from paganism, interpreted the New Testament, so to say, “with a key of two”, i.e. they divided the message of redemption of this text into only two groups: the Jews and the Gentiles.

In this way the Church interpreted Mt 15:24 (as already seen in my previous work, ibid. ch. 3: Verus Israel, a Problem of Identity and also, for instance, in the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission,The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, section…, in Ch. IV of this work), which says: He (Jesus) replied, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, in the sense that his mission was principally to the Jews and then in the second stage to the Gentiles. However, the text of Matthew is very clear in respect to Christ’s mission, which is directed to the house of Israel and not to the Jews who make up the house of Judah. The house of Israel consists in the so-called “ten lost tribes of the house of Israel”, who are intermingled in the Gentile world and who lost all their national religious identity, as a result of the conquest of the northern kingdom (the house of Israel) and the dispersion of the great majority of its population by the Assyrian Empire in 722 BCE. Certainly, without the retrieval of this vital part of the people of Israel there cannot be salvation either for the Jews or for the rest of the world, as attested not only by the Old Testament and Jewish tradition (e.g. Ez 37:15-28; Jer 3:17-18; Zech 10:3-8; Jn 10; Lk 15; Rom 11, etc.), i.e., the salvation is for the twelve tribes of Israel and not for any tribe(s) in particular. The New Testament is consistent in this conception: a) The walls of it (of the celestial Jerusalem) were of a great height, and had twelve gates; at each of the twelve gates there was an angel, and over the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel… Apoc 21:12-14. b) Then I heard how many were sealed: a hundred and forty-four thousand, out of all the tribes of Israel. Apoc 7:4; c) James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings. Jas 1:1; d) Not all those who descend from Israel are Israel; not all the descendants of Abraham are his true children. Remember: It is through Isaac that your name will be carried on… it is only the children of the promise who will count as the true descendants (Rom 9:7) … or as scripture says elsewhere: I showed my love for Jacob and my hatred for Esau; (Mal 1:2-3; cf. Rom 9:13)

From the last quotation it can already be deduced that both parts of the people of Israel go along different paths. Here I will not go into the “why” of this difference of ways of salvation in order to reach the same objective of redemption. I will merely point out that the New Testament clearly states these two ways.

One of the keys for understanding the existence of the two ways consists in reading the New Testament on the subject, with a “key of three”, i.e., that the text is talking about three very well defined groups: the house of Judah (the Jews), the house of Israel (the ten lost tribes) and the Gentiles, although the last two are today so intermingled that now it is impossible to distinguish whether each individual belongs to one of the tribes or to the Gentiles. Nevertheless, the New Testament refers clearly to the three groups that constitute key elements for a more correct understanding of the New Testament.

I will indicate here some historical milestones:

Start of King David’s reign: 1000 BCE

Start of King Solomon’s reign: 960 BCE

Start of King Rehoboam’s (Rehavam’s) reign: 920-913 BCE

The schism Jeroboam 922 -901 BCE

Exile of the Kingdom of Israel (or house of Israel), by Assyria 720 BCE

Exile of the Kingdom of Judah by Babylon 526 BCE

Return of the house of Judah, promoted by King Cyrus of Persia 461 BCE

Destruction of Jerusalem by Rome 70 CE

Second exile of the house of Judah, by the Roman Empire 130-132 CE

The Examples

Here I will present some examples of the existence of the two ways of salvation.

Matthew 9:17

This first example was already presented in my previous work. Nonetheless it is important to present it again in this chapter. The three Synoptic Gospels bring this allegory, but it will suffice to analyze it according to the text of Matthew, which teaches:

“Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” Mt 9:17 (Mk 2:22 and Lk 5:37-39).

According to Christian tradition, the “new wine” represents the NT; thus we find that:

“This opposition between the old and the new probably alludes to the old covenant, as opposed to the new […]” P. Benoit , M.E. Boisamad, J.L. Malillos. Sipnosis de los Cuatro Evangelios. Vol. II. Ed. Española Desclee de Brouwer. Bilbao. 1977. pp. 106 [My emphasis].

According to another opinion:

“The wine in this image (Mk 2:22) clearly represents the Gospel …”

Baum, Gregory, O.S.A. The Jews and the Gospel. A reexamination of the New Testament, 1964, (Nihil Obstat and Imprimi Potest).

If the “new wine” represents the New Testament, clearly the Old Testament is represented by the “old” and the “wineskins” would represent, in turn, the receptacles of the wines. Certainly, the recipients of the “old wine” are the Jews and Judaism and for their part the recipients of the “new wine” would be the Gentiles and Christianity. This quotation is teaching that it is forbidden to place new wine in the receptacle of the old, i.e. to place the New Testament, the salvation by the confession of faith of Rom 10:9 in the Jews and Judaism.

It should be noted that none of the Synoptic Gospels prohibit pouring “old wine” into “new wineskins”, i.e. placing the Old Testament in Christianity, and this is, in fact, what occurs.

On the other hand, any attempt to place “new wine” in “old wineskins” means not only the perdition of Judaism and the Jews, but also the perdition of the “new wine” or the New Testament, i.e. the instrument of salvation of the Gentiles would be lost, which would mean ultimately that they would be lost.

This text of Matthew (and parallels) comes to confirm the Church’s obligation to take care not only of the “old wine” or Old Testament but also the “old wineskins”, i.e. the Jews and Judaism that contain it, and also to recognize in their doctrine the need for two ways of redemption, i.e. one through observing the Law of Sinai by the Jews and the other, through the faith in Jesus Christ, for the Gentiles.

From this viewpoint, one can better understand Jesus’s declaration in the Gospel of John 4:22 “for salvation comes from the Jews”, namely, if the Jews are lost, the salvation of the Gentiles disappears at the same time.

ll.

The circumcision of Timothy: Acts 16:1-3

¹From there he (Paul) went to Derbe, and then on to Lystra. Here there was a disciple called Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess who had become a believer; but his father was a Greek. ²The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of Timothy, ³and Paul, who wanted to have him as a travelling companion, had him circumcised. This was on account of the Jews in the locality where everyone knew his father was a Greek. (My emphasis)

Acts 15:1-3 (Jerusalem Bible version)

Above all it should be taken into account that Judaism is transmitted by the mother (or acquired by conversion); in this case Timothy was Jewish by birth and according to Mosaic Law he should have been circumcised. This is what Paul does.

Here one of the two possibilities concerning the words “on account of the Jews” must be considered. It should not necessarily be interpreted as a protest of the Jews by keeping Timothy uncircumcised, since the text says “everyone knew his father was a Greek (Gentile)”; this was not the case for his mother, and the text tells us that his mother was known as a Jewess, since this is a situation that gives Timothy the status of a Jew.

However, the other possibility must also be considered, that it is Paul who did not know about Timothy’s Jewish origin and found out about this situation through the local Jews who did know that he was Jewish, and on being informed of his status, Paul agreed with local Jews, and according to his conception of the two ways of salvation he decided to circumcise Timothy. This is the reason that Paul decides to circumcise Timothy “on account of the Jews”. There is no pejorative declaration against the Jews in this account in Acts, since in light of the circumstance that they presented Paul has no reason not to agree with them, quite the contrary.

While it was known that his father was a Gentile, this did not give Timothy a Gentile status, according to Jewish law. Precisely this statement on the Greek origin of his father might be the intention of the author of Acts to hide the knowledge that his mother was Jewish, a fact that did not go unnoticed (or rather, could not go unnoticed) for the members of the Jewish community of Lystra.

In any case it is an error (or contempt for Paul) to consider that Paul circumcised Timothy for social reasons foreign to Timothy’s Jewish origin, since Paul knew very well and taught that:

²Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. ³Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.” ⁴You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. ⁵For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope; (my emphasis)

Gal 5:2-5

When in Gal 5:5 Paul states that: For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope, he is referring to “we the Jews” in general.

According to this, Paul would be removing his disciple from the way of redemption inaugurated by Jesus and committing him to the way of salvation through the fulfilling of the Law of Sinai. Is this attitude of Paul correct? Certainly. As a son of a Jewish mother, Timothy is Jewish by definition and his only way of salvation is through the observance of the Law and for this reason he had to be circumcised. There was no other alternative for Timothy. Men’s ways of salvation are predefined, one for the Gentiles as appears in Rom 10:9, and the other for the Jews, by observance of the Law. Free will, in this case, consists in accepting or rejecting the predetermined way. This being the case, in the first case the option must be correct and in the second case it is an erroneous alternative and therefore a sin.

From another viewpoint, it must be considered that Timothy’s circumcision is carried out before he begins his apostolic career. However, it cannot be said that if Timothy had not been circumcised he had the possibility that his way of salvation would be by the grace of Jesus Christ who brings salvation only for the house of Israel and the Gentiles. Timothy would always be Jewish, whether circumcised or not. From here we learn that for Paul a Jewish apostle must obey the entire law, and very particularly the circumcision of the flesh:

And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of your seed.
He that is born in your house, and he that is bought with your money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.

Gn 17:12-14 (see also Phil 3:5)

This attitude of Paul reinforces Jesus’s teaching that he does not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it:

5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
5:18 In truth I tell you, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, is to disappear from the Law until all its purpose is achieved.
5:19 Therefore, anyone who infringes even one of the least of these commandments and teaches others accordingly will be considered the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but the person who keeps them and teaches them will be considered great in the kingdom of Heaven. Mt 5:17-19

According to this, it can be easily deduced that all the Jewish apostles were circumcised and fulfilled the Law.

On the other hand, the fact of “eagerly awaiting by faith the righteousness” (Gal 5:5) does not exempt the Jews from the obligation of observing the entire Law. It must be clear that the “faith” to which Paul refers here is not the faith in Jesus Christ, since this faith does not save those who are circumcised, who must observe the entire law and have faith in G-d the Father, which is the faith that redeems the Jew. According to this, a Gentile who is circumcised, such as Titus, is obliged to keep the entire Law. However, the faith of a Jew in Jesus of Nazareth, as defined in Rom 10:9, does not redeem the Jew, because, on account of his circumcised status, he is obliged to keep the entire Law. On the other hand, the fact that a Jew is not circumcised does not exempt him from having to keep the Law, but he is in an anomalous status that must be corrected. In conclusion, the circumcised man has no option of changing the way of salvation, while for the Gentile this option exists, although it is not recommended, according to Paul’s preaching that everyone should stay in whatever state he was in when he was called:

¹⁷ Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. ¹⁸Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man already uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. ¹⁹Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. ²⁰Everyone should stay in whatever state he was in when he was called.

1 Cor 7:17-20 (My emphasis)

Therefore, I emphasize, Paul and all the Jews were working for the restoration of Israel as the book of the Acts of the Apostles teaches: Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel? Acts 1:6. The New Testament teaches about a process of restoration, not replacement of one people by another. The object is to restore a divided, broken Israel, in which one of the parts is lost, i.e. it has lost its national and religious identity. Therefore, those who are circumcised must keep the entire Law and separate from the way of salvation by divine grace, which Jesus inaugurated for the salvation of the house of Israel and the Gentiles. The fact of being born a Jew does not exempt from but obliges circumcision. This is not an option as already seen, it is a predestination: Since these ways are not optional, the salvation of the Gentiles is through an act of confession on the messianic nature of Jesus and the belief that G-d made him rise from the dead, and salvation is obtained, as appears in Rom 10:9, while the Jews obtain salvation through fulfillment of the law of Sinai including circumcision (Gn 17:9-14).

III.

Galatians 2:7-9

In this example I shall begin with an analysis of a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and I shall take the opportunity to indicate the problems that incorrect translations might cause:

⁷On the contrary, they recognized that I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised.
⁸The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans.
⁹So, James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. Gal 2:7-9. (Catholic.net database). Jerusalem Bible.

According to Gal 2:7-9 James, Cephas (Peter) and John go to the circumcision and not only Peter (Cephas).

In Gal 2:7, the Jerusalem Bible translation is incorrect. The Greek text states that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was entrusted to Paul as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter (The R.S.V. Interlinear Greek-English N.T., by Rev. Alfred Marshall. Samuel Bagster and Sons. Fourth Impression 1985). For its part, the text of the Interlinear Greek-Spanish N.T., by Francisco Lacueva, Clie, 1984, Barcelona, states: “but on the contrary, the Gospel of the uncircumcision was entrusted to me (to Paul) as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter.” The translation into Spanish of the New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1960 Edition) is also correct.

The Greek text clearly states that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was entrusted to Paul as that (the Gospel) of the circumcision was to Peter.

This is very important, since the Gospel of the uncircumcision is not the same as the Gospel of the circumcision. Here the reference is to two different Gospels, for two different publics: the Jews and the Gentiles. In this context, if the Gospel of the uncircumcision consists in the three Synoptic Gospels plus that of John, and by extension, of all the New Testament, the question is: what is the Gospel of the circumcision, i.e. that of the Jews? Where is this Gospel which by definition, according to the text, is not the same as that of the uncircumcision? Here, we can only conclude that this would be a single message of Salvation for the two parts of Israel that would teach about two ways of salvation with the common denominator about the principal commandments that Jesus teaches in Mk 12:29-31 (cf. Dt 6:4-5 and Lv19:18). On the other hand, both parts share the same conception that a new era has started during which a new way of salvation is opened for all men who wish to enter into it, except to the Jews (who possess their own way, through fulfillment of the Law of Moses), i.e., what the Jews call the two thousand years of the days of the Messiah and the Christians: the messianic era.

Romans 3:28-31

From another perspective, we read in Rom 3:28-31

²⁸ As we see it, a man is justified by faith and not by doing something the Law tells him to do. ²⁹Is God the God of Jews alone and not of the pagans too? Of the pagans too, most certainly, ³⁰since there is only one God, and he is the one who will justify the circumcised (circumcision) because of their faith (by faith) and justify the uncircumcised through their (the) faith. ³¹Do we mean that faith makes the Law pointless? Not at all: we are giving the Law its true value.”

Rom 3:28-31

From this it can only be concluded that the circumcised (the Jews) are justified by the direct belief in G-d [by faith] and the uncircumcised (the Christians) are justified by the faith in G-d (Father) through the faith in the intermediary (Jesus Christ); it is also confirmed that the faith of the Jews and that of the Gentiles confirm the law, i.e. the Law of Sinai also has implicitly the faith in the Father through the faith in the Son, as was seen in my previous work, pp. 257-258, in HaAmek Davar’s interpretation on Bereshit (Genesis) 50:23. Here the apostle Paul teaches about two types of faith in the Father, one is that of the Jews who are under the law and their faith is directly in the Father and the other, that of the Gentiles who are not under the law of Moses, consists also in a belief in Jesus, the intermediary between men and the Father. See Rom 8:26 and 34 as regards the salvation of the Gentiles; in Hebrews we find:

It follows, then, that his (Jesus’s) power to save is utterly certain, since he is living for ever to intercede for all who come to God through him.”

Heb 7:25 (My clarification in brackets).

Romans 3:21-24

Another example appears in the Letter to the Romans:

“But now apart from [“without-law”(Interlinear-Nestle, RSV)] the law, the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify (OT). This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ (also in Gal 2:16) to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

Rom 3:21-24 (My clarifications in brackets and my emphasis)

The most logical and simplest understanding of this passage, consists in considering that: “Apart” from the law (or without law) another way of salvation opens: “G-d’s justice through faith (in Jesus Christ)“; this means that those who are not and cannot be justified by the law, will be justified by G-d’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, i.e. G-d’s grace redeems them, returning to them the “glory of G-d” that is Jesus Christ. Certainly, for the Jews who are under the law that Moses gave to the people of Israel at Sinai, that justification is not free, but is conditional on fulfillment of this law. The reasons for this situation were already discussed in my previous work (pp. 53-55). For now, in this example too, the existence of two ways of salvation must be confirmed.

Ephesians 2:5

Another example on this subject can be found if we pay attention to an interesting play of words made by Paul in Ephesians 2:3-6, and especially in Ephesians 2:5:

“G-d made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.”

(Eph 2:5)

When Paul writes that the salvation is by grace for the Gentiles (you “it is by grace you have been saved”), he is not referring to “we”, since for “we” G-d gives us life together “with Christ”, while “you”: “it is by grace you have been saved”, i.e. the life that “we” (the house of Judah) receive together “with Christ” is not by grace, by which only “you” have been saved.

Ephesians 2:8-9 confirms the above deduction:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
Here the reference is to the Gentiles who are saved through faith, i.e. through faith in an intermediary: Jesus, and certainly this salvation is not by the works of the law. I emphasize, however, that the salvation of the Jews is by direct faith in G-d which includes the fulfillment of the works of the law that G-d gave at Sinai.

Vll

2 Peter 1:1

Again in Peter’s second letter we read:

“Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and (the) Savior Jesus Christ [the Greek-English Interlinear reads: “…of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ”], have received a faith as precious as ours….”

2 Pt 1:1 (My clarifications in brackets)

Firstly the Greek version is much clearer than the Spanish or English version, since from the Greek reading it is perfectly clear that Peter differentiates between “our G-d” and “the Savior Jesus Christ”.

According to this quote, Peter differentiates between the faith of the public to which the letter is addressed and the faith of Peter and his fellow apostles. The faith of the recipients of the letter is “a faith as precious as ours”, i.e. a faith of the same quality, of the same value, but not the same faith “as ours”. The faith of Peter and the Jews is a direct faith in G-d the Father, the Shepherd of the house of Judah (Zech 10:3-6) and the fulfillment of the law, while the faith of the Gentiles includes a faith in the Savior Jesus Christ, i.e. through a mediator (or intermediary) between G-d and mankind (See Gal 3:20; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15 and 12:24).

Vlll

1 John 4:15-16

Continuing this method of analysis, the apostle John in his First Letter also refers to the two dispensations:

“If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him, and he in God. We ourselves have known and put our faith in God’s love towards ourselves. God is love and anyone who lives in love lives in God, and God lives in him.”

1 Jn 4:15:16

According to this quote the apostle is presenting a contradiction, since, in the first part of the quote, the condition for G-d to live in the individual and the individual in G-d consists in confessing that Jesus is the Son of G-d. However in the second part of the quote, the condition of the confession does not exist for the individual to live in G-d and G-d in him, since this presence is a result of the knowledge and faith in “God’s love towards ourselves”.

In the first part of the quote, John refers to “anyone” and in the second to a much more specific group: to “ourselves“.

The first group consists in the house of Israel and the Gentiles, who certainly must confess that Jesus is the Son of G-d (Rom 10:9) while the house of Judah lives in G-d and G-d lives in it, as a result of the knowledge and faith in G-d’s love (cf. Ez 37:19 and in the NT in Lk 15:31, where Christian tradition identifies the older brother with the Jews, as is also the case in the Letter to the Romans, Rom. 9:3-5).

1 Timothy 2:3-6 and 2 Timothy 1:1-2

In the heading to the First Letter to Timothy we read:

From Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus appointed by the command of God our savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, to Timothy, true child of mine in the faith; wishing you grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Christ Jesus our Lord.

1Tim. 1:1-2

In the following sections of this letter he continues with this distinction between G-d the Father savior of the Jews, in this case Paul and the addressee of this letter: Timothy (Acts 16:1)(Both Jews):

2:3 To do this is right and will please God our Savior:
2:4 he wants everyone to be saved and reach full knowledge of the truth.
2:5 For there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus,
2:6 who sacrificed himself as a ransom for them all. He is the evidence of this, sent at the appointed time.
2:7 and I have been named a herald and apostle of it and—I am telling the truth and no lie—a teacher of the faith and the truth to the pagans.

1Tim. 2:3-6

For the Jews Paul and Timothy, G-d the Father is the Savior and the success in the mission that begins with the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the reincorporation of the house of Israel and the incorporation of the Gentiles in the people of Israel is his hope. Certainly, without Jesus’s sacrifice, which in principle is for the ransom of the house of Israel and the Gentiles, ultimately it affects the salvation of the Jews, since, without the salvation of the house of Israel there is no salvation for the house of Judah either.

When Jesus affirms that “he gave himself in ransom for all”, he is referring only to his sheep (the house of Israel and the Gentiles). He cannot give his life for the Jews, who, as already seen, are always with the Father, according to the Church’s interpretation in the Parable of the “Prodigal Son” (Lk 15:31) and in John 10:26, where Jesus explains to the Jews that since they are not his sheep, i.e. since they do not belong to Jesus’s flock not only cannot they believe in him, but nor should they believe in him.

The second Letter to Timothy begins:

From Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus in his design to promise life in Christ Jesus; to Timothy, dear child of mine, wishing you grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Tim. 1:1-2

It should not be interpreted that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the Jews, and in this case, of the Jewish apostles: Paul and Timothy. Jesus as Lord of the Jewish apostles is their teacher and guide in their mission, since the only savior of the Jews is the Father himself as attested by Paul in the First Letter. Moreover this statement by Paul is not exceptional in the scriptural text, as already seen for example in the parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:31), in Rom 11:25-26, in Zech 10:3-4, in Ez 37:19, etc.

The chair of Moses Matthew 23:1-4 and parallels

¹Then addressing the people and his disciples Jesus said, ² The scribes and the Pharisees occupy the chair of Moses. ³You must therefore do what they tell you and listen to what they say;” but do not be guided by what they do: since they do not practice what they preach. ⁴ They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulder, but will they lift a finger to move them? Not they!

Mt 23:1-4 (Mk 12:38-40; Lk 11:37-54; 20:45-47)

This is further proof of the existence of two ways, according to the New Testament. Here Jesus teaches his disciples and the Jews in general that they must keep the Law of Moses. Furthermore, since the salvation of the Jews is by the fulfillment of the law of Sinai, therefore Jesus does not come to propose a new way of salvation for the Jews, but only for the house of Israel and the Gentiles. Paul in Galatians 5:1-5 explains to the Gentiles that they must not keep the law and be circumcised because this is the way of salvation only for the Jews, as already seen in the previous sections.

Acts 15:7-11

Peter’s statement in Acts 15:7-11 must be understood along the same lines as the previous example.

⁷And after the discussion had gone on a long time, Peter stood up and addressed them. ‘My brothers,’ he said ‘you know perfectly well that in the early days God made his choice among you: the pagans were to learn the Good News from me and so become believers. ⁸In fact God, who can read everyone’s heart, showed his approval of them by giving the Holy Spirit to them just as he had to us. (Acts 10:44; Acts 2): ⁹ God made no distinction between them and us, since he purified their hearts by faith. ¹⁰It would only provoke God’s anger now, surely, if you imposed on the disciples the very burden that neither we nor our ancestors were strong enough to support? ¹¹Remember, we believe that we are saved in the same way as they are: through the grace of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 15:7-11

According to this passage of the book of the Acts of the Apostles, it is observed that the apostle of the Gospel of the circumcision (i.e. of the Jews) states that: God made his choice among you: the pagans were to learn the Good News from me (Peter) and so become believers. It was already seen in my previous work (pp. 224-225) where I quoted a midrash of Jewish tradition extensively, how Peter was sent by the Jewish leadership that had selected him as leader. According to this midrash, Peter had a dual mission, on one hand to protect the Jews and to instruct the Church not to harm them and to leave them in peace in fulfilling of their Jewish customs and traditions, and on the other, to lead the Church. The quotation refers to the “Agadata of Shimon Kaipha”. Beit HaMidrash, part 6 until end. Taking into account that the public of this midrash are Jews and it is written by rabbis, very probably at the time when the Church was already exercising political power and the Jews were under this control, this would explain the threatening descriptions of the Church with respect to the Jews and Judaism and the situation of dependency of the Jews to the nobility of the period, which in these subjects, was subordinate to the religious authority.

Sections 8 to 11 of the quotation do not create any problem, since if the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit by the way of salvation initiated for them (Rom 10:9) like that of the Jews by the fulfillment of the law of Sinai, it is only a proof that there are two ways of salvation and that the way initiated by Jesus of Nazareth for the house of Israel and Gentiles does not suspend the way of the Jews.

When he says: Remember, we believe that we are saved in the same way as they are: through the grace of the Lord Jesus, we must not fall into the error of believing that the Jews must change their way of salvation; the following remarks can be made on this quotation (Acts 15:11):

The text says “through the grace of the Lord Jesus” and it certainly does not say: “through our faith in the Lord Jesus”.
The faith of the Gentiles in the Lord Jesus (Rom 10:9) is the salvation for them only. On the other hand, the salvation of the Jews who are under the law of Sinai implies the circumcision (Gal 5:2-4); we already saw that Paul circumcised Timothy since he was a Jew by birth and not circumcised. However, the salvation of the Jews depends also on the salvation of all Israel, i.e. the grace that the Lord Jesus grants to the Gentiles (to the house of Israel and the Gentiles who are added to them) and in this sense: “we are saved in the same way as they are”. Certainly, if the Gentiles do not believe in the Lord Jesus they will not be saved, since this is the way for their salvation; in such a situation there is no salvation for the Jews either even if they fulfill the entire law. The salvation is for all Israel and not for a part of it:

and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob (Is 59:20).

Rom 11:26

However, Paul would be referring to Isaiah 60:21:

Then all your people will be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendor.

Is 60:21

In the same way, if the Jews do not fulfill the law, there is no salvation for the world either, for salvation comes from the Jews (Jn 4:22) who fulfill the law. Again the existence is found of two ways of salvation, although the traditional interpretation of this passage of Acts 15 understands the opposite. See for instance: Víctor Manuel Fernández Pablo apasionado (De Tarso hasta su plenitud). San Pablo Ed. Buenos Aires. 2009. P. 80.

Xll

Justified by faith in Jesus Christ: Galatians 2:16-17; 19-21

¹⁶ We acknowledge that what makes a man righteous is not obedience to the Law, but faith in (Through-faith-of– Christ Jesus Interlinear, Greek-English RSV. Op. cit.) Jesus Christ. We had to become believers in Christ Jesus no less than you had, and now we hold that faith in Christ rather than fidelity to the Law is what justifies us, and that no one can be justified by keeping the Law. ¹⁷Now if we were to admit that the result of looking to Christ to justify us (in order that-we might be justified-by faith on Christ- and-not-by Works-of the law) is to make us sinners like the rest, it would follow that Christ had induced us to sin, which would be absurd. ¹⁹Through the Law I am dead to the Law, so that now I can live for God. ²⁰I have been crucified with Christ (co-crucified), and I live now not with my own life but with the life of Christ who lives in me. The life I now live in this body I live in faith: faith in the Son of God (by faith-I live-of the-Son of God) who loved me and who sacrificed himself for my sake. ²¹I cannot bring myself to give up God’s gift: if the Law can justify us, there is no point in the death of Christ.

Gal 2:16-17; 19-21

Remarks

According to the Greek text, it is explained that man’s justification is by the faith of Christ Jesus and not by the faith in Christ Jesus (Gal 2:16).

If we (the Jews) believe in Jesus Christ, i.e. in his mission, this faith in Jesus Christ does not save us, but we are justified by the faith of Christ which is the direct faith in the Father, e. the Jewish faith.
In 2:17 Now if we were to admit that the result of looking to Christ to justify us (in order that-we might be justified-by faith on Christ- and-not-by Works-of the law) is to make us sinners like the rest. The faith in Christ (the Messiah son of David) is a necessary but insufficient condition for the Jews, because they must also fulfill the law. The text does not say that the faith that justifies the Jews (“us”), consists in the faith in Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus that refers to the Messiah son of Joseph, but only in Christ, which refers to the Messiah son of David.
In 2:16-17 the justification of “us” (the Jews) is by the faith of Jesus Christ (the Messiah son of Joseph) and also by the faith in Christ (the Messiah son of David).The works of the Law are a necessary, but insufficient, condition, since it is also necessary to believe in Christ, i.e. in the Messiah, as already seen in point 2.
From the analysis of Galatians 2:19-21, the following conclusions can be drawn: a) This quotation has connotations that belong to the esoteric level of interpretation. b) Do the Scriptures wish to say that Paul, individually, is co-crucified with Christ?
That Paul lives (personally) “in the faith of the Son of G-d”. The translation from the Greek does not say that Paul possesses the faith in the Son of G-d, but the faith of the Son of G-d, i.e. that he and the Son of G-d share the same faith.
In no way does Paul say that this faith is for his salvation or justification, i.e. that Paul who is circumcised cannot be saved by the faith of the Gentiles, as he himself teaches below in Galatians 5:2-4: “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”
When he says that “if the Law can justify us, there is no point in the death of Christ” he is right. The justice initiated by Jesus of Nazareth is by the faith in Him as defined by Romans 10:9 for the house of Israel and the Gentiles. However, the Jews must continue to be justified by the observance of the law and the class of faith implicit in it, i.e. the direct faith in the Father, the shepherd of the house of Judah (Zech 10:3-5).

Xlll

Luke 16.19-31

Another example of the teachings of the two ways of salvation is in Luke’s account of the rich man and Lazarus:

16:19 There was a rich man who used to dress in purple and fine linen and feast magnificently every day. 20 And at his gate there lay a poor man called Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who longed to fill himself with the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table. Dogs even came and licked his sores. 22 Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.23 In his torment in Hades he looked up and saw Abraham a long way off with Lazarus in his bosom. 24 So he cried out, “Father Abraham, pity me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony in these flames.” 25 “My son,” Abraham replied “remember that during your life good things came your way, just as bad things came the way of Lazarus. Now he is being comforted here while you are in agony. 26 But that is not all: between us and you a great gulf has been fixed, to stop anyone, if he wanted to, crossing from our side to yours, and to stop any crossing from your side to ours.” 27 The rich man replied, Father, I beg you then to send the beggar Lazarus to my father’s house, 28 since I have five brothers, to give them warning so that they do not come to this place of torment too. 29 ”They have Moses and the prophets,” said Abraham “let them listen to them.” 30 “Ah no, father Abraham,” said the rich man “but if someone comes to them from the dead, they will repent.” 31 Then Abraham said to him, If they will not listen either to Moses or to the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’

Lk 16:19-31

This account again confirms the existence of two ways of redemption. Here it is confirmed that the faith of Romans 10:9 does not save the Jews who must continue to obey the Law of Moses in order to be saved, even when a different way of salvation is opened to the Gentiles.

Above all it must be clarified that the sin of the rich man consisted in the failure to fulfill the principal commandments of loving one’s neighbor. Certainly this commandment is at the basis of the two ways of salvation, for the two parts of the people of Israel. Therefore it is deduced from here that the family of the rich man did not obey this commandment of the law. Since it is a Jewish family, it should have obeyed the law that Moses gave in the desert to the people of Israel and fulfilled the precepts and ordinances of this law and naturally, one of its pillars, the love of one’s neighbor, i.e., inter alia being responsible and merciful to the needy, as taught by Paul in the Letter to the Galatians 5:2-4, as seen above.

XlV

Galatians 2:20

Yet another example is in Paul’s declaration on the nature of his faith when he writes in the Letter to the Galatians:

I have been crucified with Christ, and I live now not with my own life but with the life of Christ who lives in me. The life I now live in this body I live in faith: faith in the Son of God (by faith-I live-of the-Son of God) who loved me and who sacrificed himself for my sake.

Gal 2:20.

Paul lives in the faith of the Son of G-d and not in the faith in the Son of G-d.

This means that Paul and Christ have the same faith, i.e. in the Father, since the faith of the Son cannot be a faith (or belief) in himself.

1 Corinthians 15:14

Another proof of the NT teaching of the existence of two ways of salvation is in the First Letter to the Corinthians:

“If Christ has not been raised then our preaching is useless and your believing it is useless.” 1 Cor 15:14. (My emphasis)

According to this, Paul teaches the Corinthians two things, if Christ has not been raised: a) “Our preaching” includes the Jew Aquila and his wife Priscilla and Timothy and Silas in Paul’s second apostolic journey, i.e. the reference is to the Jews accompanying him. This means that your faith is not our faith, the faith of Paul and the Jews accompanying him, i.e., the faith of the Jews is not useless even if Christ has not been raised, since it is founded on the direct belief in the Father and not like that of the Gentile Corinthians that consists in the faith in the Son (Rom 10:9) and through his intermediation in the Father. b) In the hypothetical case that Christ’s resurrection did not take place, only the mission of the Jews to the Gentiles is useless, not the Gentiles’ faith. Since Christ was raised, Paul’s teaching is limited to emphasizing the existence of two ways i.e., of two types of faith and that both are redeeming, as seen in the previous points: “your faith” and that refers implicitly, also, to the other faith, “our faith”, i.e. that of the Jews as a different faith.

Paul distinguishes between “our preaching” (i.e. that of the Jews to the Gentiles) and “your believing”, i.e. the faith in Jesus Christ (e.g. Rom 19:9) which, as already seen on several occasions, is not the faith of the Jews.

“Our preaching” consists in continuing Jesus’s mission to seek the house of Israel (Jer 3:18 and Mt 15:24) and of the Gentiles (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Pesachim 87b), for the inclusion in the olive tree of Israel together with the house of Judah (the Jews).

XVl

Below is an example of the conception of a single way of salvation which is through the redeeming intervention of Christ, so classic among the Christian theologians, where they include the Jews in the Christian way of salvation. This example is based on a passage from the book by Mons. Alfredo H. Zecca, Archbishop of Tucumán, Argentina:

Monsignor Zecca, in his last book, writes about Theological relativism: This is a broad scope… It suffices to indicate its nucleus; all religions have the same redeeming value. Therefore there is no true and universal religion. Christ and the Church are consequently only one way of salvation among many others. From this thesis it is immediately inferred that the unique redeeming mediation of Christ in the Church is denied. Zecca, Alfredo Horacio. Iglesia y cultura en el siglo XXI. Ed. Ágape. 2011, p. 16.

Certainly, the interpretation of the Scriptures presented in my work does not identify with “all religions have the same redeeming value”, since, if this were the case, each individual could choose his own religion, from the “menu” of the existing religions to suit his own taste and convenience.

The thesis of the two ways presented here considers that in G-d’s unique project of salvation there are two ways for two different groups, i.e., the way of redemption for the Jews by fulfillment of the Law of Moses and another way for the Gentiles, “the unique redeeming mediation of Christ”, according to the Holy Scriptures, especially the NT. In other words, Monsignor Zecca is correct when he writes about the “unique redeeming mediation of Christ”. What is explained and demonstrated, both in this work and my previous work (ch. 8, pp. 179-188), is that this “redeeming mediation” is irrelevant for the Jews, since they do not require the mediation of Jesus of Nazareth, because the Jews are always with the Father (through fulfillment of the Law of Sinai, which was given directly by the Father) as already shown in the examples above, where the New Testament must be the main educator on this subject.

It should also be emphasized, in this context, that the pagan religions in themselves have no redeeming power. G-d can save pagans, individuals or groups, at His sole wish and discretion. This means that the members of the monotheistic religions are not in conditions to judge or condemn the pagans for belonging to these religions only, since:

… my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.

Is 55:8

However, what they are obliged to do is to bring them the good news of the way of salvation initiated by Jesus of Nazareth, for the Gentiles (and the house of Israel within them). The obligation of the Christians is to convert the pagans and not to condemn them for their condition of being pagans. This should be made very clear.

XVll

In the Parable of the “Prodigal Son”, the elder brother complains that the Father had never sacrificed a calf for him, although he is always working in the house of the Father and knows that everything that belongs to the Father also belongs to him.

In Christian tradition the calf represents, or rather, is an allegory of Jesus’s sacrifice for his sheep: the house of Israel and the Gentiles (Jn 10), when it returns (or rather, so that it will return). According to this, Jesus’s sacrifice is not for the house of Judah, i.e. the Jews. Therefore, this is further proof of the existence of two ways of salvation.

XVlll

In this section, I shall demonstrate the existence of a situation of theological dissonance in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as regards the way of salvation for the Jews. When some original declaration is made on Judaism, as a logical consequence of Nostra Aetate, there are cognitive inconsistencies that would seem very difficult to overcome. One example is in the passage of Pope John Paul II’s address to the Jewish community of Mainz (Germany) on November 17, 1980, in which he states “… “… the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked”. This address, in turn was included in the document Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church, 1985. The statement should open the way to the obligatory conclusion that there are two ways of salvation according to the NT teachings, i.e. a way of salvation for the Jews through fulfilling the Law of Moses and another, for the rest of mankind, through Jesus’s redeeming sacrifice and by an act of confession of faith as explicit in Romans 10:9.

However, an official doctrinal declaration on the obligatory conclusions of such an affirmation has never been made, and this allows adopting of diverging positions on this subject by clergymen, theologians and believers in general. We find contradictions of this kind in the same “Notes”, when elsewhere he states that when Jesus declares (Jn. 10:16) that there shall be “one flock and one shepherd”, the Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to (preach) Christ as the Redeemer for all. This cognitive inconsistency lies in the fact that in the same document a declaration of the Pope is cited maintaining that the Old Covenant was never revoked and that this is based on the New Testament (Rom 11:28-29), i.e. it continues to be valid, although only for the Jews, yet on the other hand in the same text the possibility of the existence of two ways of redemption is denied. In other words, if the Old Covenant was not revoked, this means that it continues to be the way of salvation for the Jews and as seen in the case of Timothy, there is no optional way of salvation for the Jews.

In this respect, I consider it important to again quote an unequivocal opinion of the Protestant theologian Allan R. Brockway, whose position, even though addressed to the Protestant churches, is valid also for the Catholic Church (A. Yoel Ben Arye. Op.cit):

“That is definitely so for those churches which have gone on record as affirming the contemporary validity of Israel’s covenant (salvation through observing the Law), for that affirmation wipes away in one stroke all ambivalence about the centrality of Jewish mission to the definition of the Church. Once it is clear to Christians and the churches that God remains faithful to the covenant with the elect people, then any attempt to woo Jews away from that covenant is revealed as an attack upon the God who made the covenant. In sum, Christian mission to Jews is nothing less than Sin.”

Brockway. Allan R, “The theology of the Churches and the Jewish People” Center for the Study of Judaism and Jewish Christian Relations. Birmingham. England. 1989.www.abrock.com/birmingham

XlX

Another demonstration on the two ways is found in the Apocalypse in chapter 15:3:

15:3 And they were singing the hymn of Moses, the servant of God, and of the Lamb: How wonderful are all your works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are all your ways, King of nations.

(Apoc. 15:3)

Important remark.

The author of the Apocalypse speaks of two ways: that of Moses and that of the Lamb. Both ways are just and true. This would be yet another confirmation of the two ways of redemption. One way through the law of Moses, for those who are under this law, i.e. the Jews, and the other way is that of the Lamb (of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, that the Father sacrifices to celebrate the return of the prodigal son, i.e. the ten lost tribes of the house of Israel) who is sacrificed for the salvation of the house of Israel and the Gentiles (Lk 15:23).

And they were singing the hymn of Moses, the servant of God , and of the Lamb: How wonderful are all your works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are all your ways, King of nations.

(Apoc. 15:3)

A final example on the validity of the Covenant of Sinai (now only for the Jews) is in the Book of the Apocalypse 11:19:

Then the sanctuary of G-d in heaven opened, and the Ark of the Covenant could be seen inside it. Then came flashes of lightning , peals of thunder and an earthquake, and violent hail.

According to this text, in the heavenly Temple, “the Ark of the Covenant” of Sinai continues to exist, and no other Ark, since only the Ark of the Covenant is that of Sinai. No other covenant that has an ark exists, except for that of Sinai. According to this vision, the Covenant of Sinai continues to be valid, not only in heaven but also on earth, which is a material reality (so to say) of the heavenly reality. If this were not the case, why should this vision be mentioned?

Conclusions

a) One of the keys for more consistent understanding between all the parts of the Holy Scriptures, as regards principally the subject of the Redemption, consists in reading the Scriptures with a key of three, i.e. the house of Judah, the house of Israel and the Gentiles, and not as has been done until now (in the last 1900 years) in a key of two, i.e. Gentiles and Jews only.
b) With these hermeneutics a more consistent understanding is reached of the New Testament, where seemingly unconnected parables and allegories support each other and thus reinforce its messages as in the case of the Romans 11 (the allegory of the good olive tree), Lk 15:11-32 (the parable of the prodigal son), or John 10, for instance, where the parallel between the cut off branches and the prodigal son who abandons his Father’s house is clear. The parallel that remains is equally clear, i.e. the branches that are not cut off, but remain on the trunk of the good olive tree and the elder brother who is together with the Father, are images of the house of Israel and the house of Judah, respectively and the third component, are the branches of the wild olive grafted into the “cultivated olive” (or people of Israel) who are the Gentiles. The same is true of the three types of sheep in the Gospel of John 10.

[1] Ben Arye, A. Yoel Two Ways, One Redemption. Towards a Jewish-Christian Theological Dialogue. Dunken Publishing House. Buenos Aires. 2012.

[2] Nieto, Gustavo Javier. El don de la Nueva Alianza. “Pondré mi ley en su interior y sobre sus corazones la escribiré” (Jr 31, 33b). Part 2. Rome. Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1997.

[3] The quotation in Spanish is taken from the Biblia de Jerusalem; however, in the translation of the Sociedades Bíblicas Unidas, 1960, the translation is correct. The clarifications in square brackets are mine, but not those in ordinary brackets: (and the House of Judah), which appears in the version quoted from the Biblia de Jerusalem and in the Jerusalem Bible in English.

[4]Cf. the interpretation of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, according to Lk 15:11-32 in Ben Arye, A Yoel, op. cit., ch. 8: “No one can come to the Father except through me”.

[5] See Ben Arye, A. Yoel, op. cit., ch. 3: “Verus Israel, a Problem of Identity”.

[6] Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (1817-1893), wrote the book HaAmek Davar and is known also by the name of his book.

[7]HaAmek Davar, on Genesis 50:23.

[8]See the interpretation of the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Ben Arye, A Yoel, op. cit., ch. 8: “No one can come to the Father except through me”.

[9] Ben Arye, A. Yoel, op. cit., ch. 3: “Verus Israel, a Problem of Identity”.

[10]Pontifical Biblical Commission: The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. Vatican City, 2001.

[11]See Appendix 1.

[12]Cf. Ben Arye, A. Yoel, op.cit., Ch. 5: “The Restoration of Jerusalem”.

[13] Ben Arye, Yoel A., op. cit., ch. 9: “What does “the Law has found its fulfillment in Christ” mean?”

[14] David Flusser. “The Last Supper and the Essenes”, in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. The Magnes Press. 1988, p. 118.

Theological Dialogue

Jewish – Christian

In an article by journalist Jean Duhaime, reporting on the symposium held at the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council Nostra Aetate Declaration, in 2005, he recounts that:

Introduction

Rom 3:21-24 (My clarifications in brackets and my emphasis)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

In an article by journalist Jean Duhaime, reporting on the symposium held at the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council Nostra Aetate Declaration, in 2005, he recounts that:

Introduction

Rom 3:21-24 (My clarifications in brackets and my emphasis)

Related posts

Leave a Reply Cancel reply