Honor the Jews With Honesty: A Reply to Professor George

To deny supersessionism, it is absolutely necessary to "disparage many fathers and doctors, saints and popes", as Dr George has done.

From Crisis

By Philip Primeau

We must be precise and consistent with the Church's tradition when discussing the role of the Jews in the process of salvation.

I recently took issue with the unqualified use of the term “faithful Jew” to describe our Lord, arguing that this expression (bereft of the nuance provided by Gideon Lazar) is likely to mislead Catholics by too closely associating Jesus with modern Judaism, which departs from divine religion in important respects. I also insinuated that such language, embraced by Professor Robert P. George (among others), betrays a defective view of the divine economy and the Jews’ role therein. Ironically, this view borders on “reverse replacement theology,” imputing to carnal Israel honors due to Christ and spiritual Israel, which is the Church.

Sadly, Professor George corroborated my suspicions in an appearance on a Philos Project podcast, where he discussed his lately published essay “An Unbreakable Covenant.” Over the course of the podcast, Professor George implicitly disparaged many fathers and doctors, saints and popes, whom he cast as crude supersessionist anti-Semites who paved the way for the Holocaust. Worse, he made a number of ambiguous, exaggerated, and disputable statements concerning Jews and Judaism, advancing opinion as if it were settled doctrine. This is dismaying behavior for a man of profound piety and erudition!

One statement, indicative of the rest in its imprecision, caught my attention. Responding to a question about resurgent anti-Semitism in certain Catholic circles, Professor George asserted that from a “Christian point of view…the mission of the Jews, the reason God elects the Jews, is to be a light unto the Gentiles, a light unto the nations, to be a light to us, who are not Jewish.” Significantly, he framed this mission as current and ongoing: “The Jewish people are not always going to live up to it, individually or collectively.”

Although this perspective is not wholly false, it is woefully incomplete as put. Indeed, absent substantial development, it tilts toward error. Yes, God chose Israel to serve a royal, priestly, and prophetic function: publishing abroad divine wisdom, mediating between Heaven and earth, drawing the nations from idolatry (see, for example, Deuteronomy 4:6; Wisdom 18:4). However, absent elucidatory notes, this datum of revelation is likely to sow confusion. Regrettably, Professor George supplied no such notes, so I must.

First, the Church has always taught, consistent with the apostolic witness, that the election of the patriarchs and their carnal progeny was principally ordered toward the generation of the Seed promised to Adam and again to Abraham (Genesis 3:15, 22:18), the Seed who would fulfill the promises of the old and transient covenants in a most excellent fashion, uniting all men in the blessings of the new and eternal covenant (Romans 4:13-25; Galatians 3:15-29; 2 Corinthians 1:20; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, 98, 4; Lumen Gentium 1-2; Dei Verbum 14-15). 

Hence, the children of Abraham were charged with guarding glimmers of God’s splendor (Romans 3:2) until the Dayspring from on high should dawn (Luke 1:78), illuminating the eyes of Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 26:23). This Seed, this Dayspring, is Jesus, the incarnate Word, to whom the Father said, “I will make You as a light for the nations” (Isaiah 42:6; see Matthew 12:15-21; Luke. 2:32; 2 Corinthians 4:6). Being the Christ, the Son of God, He realized in Himself Israel’s threefold office, perfecting and universalizing its vocation; and anyone who clings to Him by faith shares and reflects this triple glory (Matthew 5:14; Acts 13:47). 

Thus, it is unsatisfactory to assert, as did Professor George, that the Jews were—are—elected to enlighten the world, full stop. That is half the story, at best, bracketing pertinent Christological and ecclesiological applications and ignoring the problem of how the Jews can be light bearers when they largely reject the Light, our Lord Jesus (John 8:12).

Second, technically it is not the Jews who received this special calling but Israel, a covenant community that finds mature form in the mystical body of Christ, the Catholic Church. Granted, Jews long dominated the ranks of Israel, inviting conceptual and verbal interchangeability (e.g., John 4:22), but now the Gentiles have been enrolled on equal footing (Ephesians 2:12-13), taking the place of those Jews who are alienated for unbelief (Romans 11:17). Therefore, the duties and privileges of sonship—royal, priestly, and prophetic (1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6; see Exodus 19:6)—accrue to the messianic congregation, which truly deserves to be called Israel and the people of God (Lumen Gentium 9; Nostra Aetate 4).

This is not to say that carnal Israelites—those who hold to Moses apart from Christ—are utterly devoid of celestial gifts, totally alienated from the sacred commonwealth. Doubtless, they abide in sin and death, spurning the fountain of life (Luke 1:79; Ephesians 2:3). Yet they retain some natural connection to Israel and its heavenly treasures (Romans 9:4-5, 11:21; Nostra Aetate 4). Eventually, they will be corporately reintegrated into the covenant community (Romans 11:25-26). 

In the meantime, the marvelous perdurance of the Jews proves that God bears toward them a mysterious affection (Romans 11:28), which demands admiring contemplation. And by their stubborn adherence to the ancient ceremonies and their diligent study of Scripture—zeal without knowledge (Romans 10:2)—they absorb and communicate some rays of divine beauty and even inadvertently magnify Christ, to the glory of the Father, who awaits their return to His friendship.

So we perceive the inadequacy of Professor George’s speculations, which threaten to becloud the truth. Bitter irony, that one who seeks to confute the error of anti-Semitism should, by his own extravagant philo-Semitism, flirt with an opposite error. Candidly, I fear that his words will have the effect of diminishing and obscuring the brilliance of the Gospel in Zion. By flattering the Jews, and playing to their national pride in a manner contrary to Scripture, he renders them complacent and confirms their disobedience (Romans 11:31). 

No doubt Professor George wishes to honor the Jews. But how much more would he honor them with honesty, employing his eloquence to prick their hearts and boldly preach Christ from Moses and the prophets!—Christ who humbly accepted the yoke of the Law (Galatians 4:4) that He might redeem Jacob from its curse (Galatians 3:13) and pour forth the Holy Spirit upon the house of Israel (Jeremiah 31:27-34), and every other race besides, making peace in Heaven and on earth through the blood of His Cross (Colossians 1:20). 
We must constantly recall that our Lord came personally to His brethren (Matthew 15:24). The Gospel is for them first (Romans 1:16). The moment we forget this is the moment we begin to hate the Jews, for where the Gospel languishes, anti-Semitism thrives. Let us love the Jews, but let us love them in the truth.