If Jews are Saved by Their Eternal Covenant, How are Christians to Understand Jesus as Universal Savior?

­ A Roman Catholic Perspective  

Peter C. Phan

Georgetown University

 

 

In recent years not a few Christian theologians, recalling Paul’s teaching that God’s covenant with Israel remains eternal (Romans 11:29 ), have affirmed that God’s redemptive power is still at work in and through Judaism.[1] This recognition that Judaism continues to function as a way of salvation, at least for Jews, poses serious challenges to Roman Catholics since it seems, at first sight, to contradict their church’s longstanding double teaching that  Jesus is the unique, universal, and absolute savior, and that outside the church there is no salvation. Hence, the affirmation of the continuing validity of God’s covenant with Israel calls for a re-examination of these two traditional teachings, especially the former. This brief essay seeks to outline, from the Roman Catholic perspective, a theology of religions and of the role of Christ as savior that remains both harmonious with the Christian faith in Jesus as the savior of the whole humankind and receptive to the acknowledgment of Judaism as a still valid way of salvation.

 

 

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)

 

Any re-interpretation of the doctrine of the universality and uniqueness of Jesus as savior within Roman Catholic theology must take into account the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on the possibility of salvation for non-Christians and on the existence of  “elements of truth and grace” within non-Christian religions. With regard to the salvation of non-Christians, Vatican II, reversing the church’s centuries-old condemnation of non-Christians to hell,[2] affirms that “those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”[3] Among these people the council explicitly mentions five groups: Jews, Moslems, those seeking the unknown God in shadows and images through their religions, those who do not practice any specific religion but sincerely seek God, and those who, without any fault on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God (e.g., atheists). All these people, the council says, “may achieve eternal salvation,” though of course not without the grace of Christ.[4]

 

With regard to non-Christian religions, Vatican II acknowledges that the “rites and customs of peoples,” including therefore their religions, should be “saved from destruction” and “purified and raised up, and perfected for the glory of God.”[5] In its Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity (Ad Gentes), the council affirms that these religious elements “may lead one to the true God and be a preparation for the gospel.”[6] These “elements of truth and grace” are the “secret presence of God”[7] and “the seeds of the word.”[8] In its Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate), Vatican II mentions the primitive religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism. Of these religions the council affirms: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. It has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from its own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men and women.”[9]

 

With regard to Judaism in particular, the council acknowledges the “spiritual ties which link the people of the new covenant to the stock of Abraham” and said that “the church of Christ acknowledges that in God’s plan of salvation the beginnings of its faith and election are to be found in the patriarchs, Moses and the prophets.”[10] It recalls Paul’s teaching that “the Jews remain very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made.”[11]

 

 

A Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism

 

In spite of its positive evaluation of non-Christian religions in general and of Judaism in particular, Vatican II self-consciously refrains from affirming that these religions as such  function as “ways of salvation” in a manner analogous, let alone parallel, to Christianity. In the last three decades, however, extensive reflections have been done on the relationship between Christianity, and by implication, Jesus Christ, on the one hand and non-Christian religions, and especially Judaism, on the other. A new theology of religions has re-assessed the role of Christ as the unique and universal savior and the function of non-Christian religions themselves within God’s plan of salvation.

 

In a recent work Catholic theologian Paul F. Knitter, who has written extensively on religious pluralism, has helpfully categorized contemporary theologies of religions into four basic types, which he terms “replacement,” “fulfillment,” “mutuality,” and “acceptance” models.[12] 

  1. Replacement affirms that Christianity is the only one true religion and that it will replace, totally or partially, all other religions which are considered as basically humanity’s sinful attempts at self-salvation.

  2. Fulfillment, while affirming Christianity as the one true religion, acknowledges the presence of elements of truth and grace in other religions and advocates a mutual, though not equal, complementarity between Christianity and other religions through dialogue.

  3. Mutuality holds that there are many true religions, none necessarily superior to the others, which are all called to dialogue and collaborate with each other, especially in projects of liberation, in order to realize their true nature.

  4. Acceptance stresses the diversity of religions from one another and refuses to seek a common ground among them; rather it urges each religion to foster its own aims and practices.

           

Jesus as the “Universal,” “Unique,” and “Absolute” Savior

 

Needless to say, each of these four theologies of religions views the role of Christ as savior and the three adjectives characterizing it (i.e, “universal,” “unique,” and “absolute”) very differently. The first model takes literally the New Testament affirmations that Jesus is the only and exclusive revealer, mediator, and savior of humankind (John 14:6; Acts 4:12 ; 1 Corinthians 3:11 ; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 5:12 ) and that an explicit faith in Jesus is absolutely necessary for salvation (John 3:36 ). The fourth model also professes that Jesus is the unique, universal, and absolute savior, as traditionally confessed by the Christian faith, but leaves the possibility of other “saving figures” and “ways of salvation” neither affirmed nor denied; about the latter it simply pleads ignorance. The third model takes the New Testament passages cited above and the three adjectives describing Jesus the savior not as literal, rational prose but as poetry affirming Jesus’ specialness but not exclusivity. In other words, Jesus is totus Deus – wholly God, insofar as he fully responded to God’s love in the Spirit – but not totum Dei –  the whole of God or divine, understood in the metaphysical sense.

 

Before attempting a theology of Jesus as savior that is consonant with the Roman Catholic tradition and at the same time recognizes that the redemptive power of God is at work in the Jewish tradition, it is necessary to recall, albeit briefly, the teaching of declaration Dominus Iesus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (August 6, 2000) on Jesus as savior.[13] Concerned that religious pluralism may lead to relativism, the declaration re-affirms certain Christian doctrines, which it alleges to have been denied by pluralists, such as the “fullness and definitiveness of the revelation of Jesus Christ,” the unity between the saving work of the incarnate Word and that of the Holy Spirit, the “unicity and universality of the salvific mystery of Jesus Christ,” the “unicity and unity of the church,” and the unity between the reign of God and the church.[14] Of interest to our theme are the declaration’s statements on Jesus as the unique and universal savior and on the relation between Christianity and other religions.

 

With regard to Jesus as revealer, Dominus Iesus affirms that “in the mystery of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God ... the full revelation of divine truth is given” (no. 5) and rejects the “theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be complementary to that found in other religions” (no. 6). Concerning Jesus as savior, Dominus Iesus states that “Jesus Christ has a significance and value for the human race and its history, which are unique and singular, proper to him alone, exclusive, universal, and absolute” (no. 15). As to the relationship between Christianity and other religions, Dominus Iesus condemns the view that the church is “one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converting with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God ” (21). Hence, it says that even though “the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation” (no. 22).

 

 

Christ and Christianity in View of The Continuing Validity of the Jewish Covenant

 

In the wake of the unexpected storm of protest against Dominus Iesus by many Christian as well as non-Christian theologians some Vatican officials insinuated that Judaism is not targeted by the declaration’s negative judgment on non-Christian religions (even though Judaism is not explicitly exempted by the declaration). While it is true that the Catholic Church has always recognized the special status of Judaism and its historical and theological connections with Christianity, nevertheless, the claim that “Jews, who do not share our faith in Christ, are in a saving covenant with God,” if anything, exacerbates the problems posed by religious pluralism, since it is claimed that at least one non-Christian religion, namely Judaism, is a way of salvation (“a saving covenant with God”) apart, at least prima facie, from Christ and Christianity.

 

The challenge for Roman Catholic theologians then is to articulate a coherent and credible Christology and soteriology (theology of salvation) that honors the Christian belief in Jesus as the savior of all humankind and at the same time includes the affirmation that Judaism is and remains eternally a “saving covenant with God.” In other words, what is needed is what has been called a non- or post-supersessionist Christology, or more generally, an inclusivist-pluralist Christology. It is to be noted here that the intent of this kind of Christology is not so much to elaborate a Christian theology of Judaism as such (which may or may not be interested in having its faith validated by Christians) as to reflect on how Christians should understand themselves in reference to Judaism and, by extension, to other religions.

  1. The most fundamental element of a post-supersessionist Christology is an unambiguous and explicit rejection of the idea that since Christ is the “fulfillment,” “fullness,” and “definitiveness” of divine revelation, God’s self-gift to and covenant with Israel have been abolished, either because of Israel’s guilt in rejecting and killing Jesus (as implied in the charge of faithlessness and deicide against the Jews) or because of the intrinsic superiority of Jesus’ ministry and of Christianity (the “New” Covenant supplanting the “Old” Covenant). Rather the two covenanted people of God, Israel and the Church, are allowed by God to exist side by side in order to instruct and encourage each other “to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly” with their common God (Micah 6: 8).

  2. Next, there should be a retrieval of the ancient notion of multiple covenants. As Saint Irenaeus, the second-century bishop of Lyons , has put it, God has made several covenants: under Adam, under Noah, under the Law, and under the Gospel.[15] Hence, God is covenanted not only with Israel (under the Law) and Christians (under the Gospel) but also with humanity as a whole (under Adam) and even with the entire universe (under Noah). The first three covenants (including therefore God’s covenant with Israel ) have not been abolished or invalidated, nor have they been absorbed or dissolved into the fourth. Even though the first three have been, to use Irenaeus’s expression, “recapitulated” in the fourth, that is, brought under Christ as their head, they have not lost their proper identity and integrity. On the contrary, precisely because they have been “recapitulated” in Christ, they have achieved and maintain their full identity and integrity, even today. Therefore, any talk about God’s “new” covenant in Jesus must keep in mind the continuing significance and validity of these other covenants.

  3. The most challenging task of a post-supersessionist Christology consists in providing an explanation for how it is theologically possible to both recognize the continuing validity of God’s covenant with Israel and maintain the faith in Jesus as the person in whom God has acted to save humanity. There are two dimensions in this explanation, one concerning the activities of the Logos (Word) of God in Jesus (christological) and the other concerning the activities of the Holy Spirit (pneumatological). According to the Christian faith, the divine Logos, the Son of God the Father, took flesh as a Jew, that is, in Jesus of Nazareth and is therefore identical with him. However, the Logos was not, and could not be, exhaustively embodied in Jesus of Nazareth, since Jesus was spatially and temporally limited and hence could not exhaustively express the divine, infinite saving power in his human words and deeds. This is part of what is meant by saying that the Logos “emptied himself”  in the man Jesus and was subjected to human limitations (though not sin). There is therefore a “distinction-in-identity” or “identity-in-distinction” between the eternal, “unincarnate” Logos and the Jew Jesus in whom the Logos became flesh in time and with whom he is identical. Hence, the activities of the Logos, though inseparable from those of Jesus, are also distinct from and go beyond Jesus’ historic activities, both before and after the Incarnation.

  4. In addition, the Holy Spirit, though intimately united with the Logos, is distinct from him and operates salvifically outside and beyond him, before, during, and after Jesus’ ministry. The Holy Spirit “blows where he wills” (John 3: 8). To use Irenaeus’s colorful metaphor, the Logos and the Holy Spirit are the two “hands” of God with which God acts in the world, not independently of (much less in opposition to) each other of course, but distinctly and diversely nonetheless – though always in conjunction with each other. Thus, God’s saving presence through Word and Spirit is not limited to the Christian covenant but was active and continues to be so in the history of Israel, and one might add, is extended to the whole human history, especially in the sacred books, rituals, moral teachings, and spiritual practices of all religions. In this way, what the Holy Spirit says and does is truly different from, though not contradictory to, what the Logos says and does, and what the Logos and the Spirit do and say in Israel and in non-Christian religions may be truly different from, though not contradictory to, what Jesus and the Spirit do among Christians.

  5. Religious pluralism then is not just a matter of fact but also a matter of principle. That is to say, Judaism and other non-Christian religions should be seen as part of the plan of divine Providence and endowed with a particular role in the history of salvation. They are not merely a “preparation” for, “stepping stones” toward, or “seeds” of Christianity and destined to be “fulfilled” by it. Rather they have their own autonomy and their proper role as ways of salvation, at least for their adherents.

  6. In light of what has been said above, one may question the usefulness of words such as ‘unique,’ ‘absolute,’ and even ‘universal’ to describe the role of Jesus as savior. Words are unavoidably embedded in socio-political and cultural contexts, and the contexts in which these words were used were steeped in colonialist conquest, economic exploitation, political domination, and religious marginalization. No matter how they are theologically qualified, words such as uniqueness, absoluteness, and universality are not the most effective means to convey Christ’s message of humble service and compassionate love, especially to victims of political, economic, and religious persecution. In particular, in the post-Holocaust era, they should be jettisoned and replaced by other equivalents. Christ’s uniqueness, however it is understood, is not exclusive or absolute but, to use Jacques Dupuis’s expressions, “constitutive” and “relational.”[16] That is to say, because the Christ event belongs to and is the climax of God’s plan of salvation, Christ is constitutive of salvation in a very special manner. In him God has brought about salvation for all humanity in a most effective and intense manner. Moreover, because Judaism and other non-Christian religions themselves are a part of God’s plan of salvation of which Christ is the culminating point, Christ is related to these religions, especially Judaism, and vice versa. Furthermore, because non-Christian religions possess an autonomous function in the history of salvation, different from that of Christianity, they and Christianity, though mutually related, cannot be reduced to each other. Autonomy and relatedness are not mutually contradictory.

  7. There is then a reciprocal relationship between Christianity and Judaism and the other religions. Not only are the non-Christian religions complemented by Christianity, but also Christianity is complemented by other religions. In other words, the process of complementation, enrichment, and even correction is  two-way or reciprocal. This reciprocity in no way endangers the faith confession that the church has received from Christ the fullness of revelation, since it is one thing to receive a perfect and unsurpassable gift, and quite another to understand it fully and to live it completely.  It is therefore only in dialogue with other religions that Christianity can come to a fuller realization of its own identity and mission and a better understanding of the unique revelation that it has received from Christ, and vice versa, other religions can achieve their full potential only in dialogue with each other and with Christianity.

  8. Furthermore, despite the fact that Christian faith proclaims that Jesus Christ is the fullness of revelation and the unique and universal savior, there is also a reciprocal relationship between him and other “savior figures” and non-Christian religions, since Jesus’ uniqueness is not absolute but relational. In this sense, Jesus’ revelation and salvation are also “complemented” by God’s self-revelation and redemption manifested in other savior figures and non-Christian religions. In this context it is useful to remember that Jesus did not and could not reveal everything to his disciples and that it is the Holy Spirit that will lead them to “the complete truth” (John 16: 12-13). There is nothing to prevent one from thinking that the Holy Spirit will lead the church to the complete truth through the dialogue with other religions in which he is actively present.

  9. Finally, one of the fundamental truths of the Christian faith is the so-called Second Coming of Christ. Christians are still waiting in hope for the coming of Christ as the glorious Messiah and Lord to judge the living and the dead. The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s important document The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible asserts that when the Jewish Messiah appears, he will have some of the traits of Christ and that Christians will recognize the traits of Jesus in him.[17] If this is true, then it is recognized that there are two ways of understanding the universal significance of the Christ Event, one through the christological symbols of the Christian faith, the other through the Jewish symbols of Judaism. These two ways do not contradict each other, but they remain distinct. How they will ultimately converge at the end of time is a matter of faith and hope. Meanwhile Christians and Jews must join their actions and hearts, in mutual forgiveness and love, so that that ultimate unity may be realized as much as possible even now.


[1] See, for instance, the following representative works: Norbert Lohfink, The Covenant Never Revoked: Biblical Reflections on Christian-Jewish Dialogue (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1991) and John T. Pawlikowski, Jesus and the Theology of Israel (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989). An important document of the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with Jews entitled Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church (June 24, 1985), reiterates a statement made by John Paul II in his speech to the Jewish community of West Germany at Mainz on November 17, 1980: “the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked....” (No. 3). The permanence of the Jewish covenant is also affirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), no. 839. A recent and significant document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (May 24, 2001) makes a nuanced affirmation of the continuing validity of the Jewish covenant (Part II, § 46): “Israel continues to be in a covenant relationship with God, because the covenant-promise is definitive and cannot be abolished. But the early Christians were also conscious of living in a new phase of that plan announced by the prophets and inaugurated by the blood of Jesus, “blood of the covenant,” because it was shed out of love (cf. Revelation 1:5b-6).” The English text of this document is available at Vatican City : Libreria Editrice Vaticana and on line: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pbc_docume.

[2] See, for instance, the Council of Florence’s decree to the Jacobites (1442): “(The Holy Roman Church) ... firmly believes, professes and preaches that ‘no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans,” but also Jews, heretics and schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matthew 25: 41), unless before the end of their life they are joined to it.” English translation is taken from The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, ed. Joseph Neuner and Jacques Dupuis (New York: Alba House, 2001) . For an excellent analysis of the Roman catholic teaching on “outside the church there is no salvation,” see Francis A. Sullivan, Salvation outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response (New York: Paulist Press, 1992).

[3] See Vatican II’s dogmatic constitution on the church (Lumen Gentium), no. 16.  English translation of Vatican II’s documents is taken from Vatican II: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations, ed. Austin Flannery (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1996).

[4] Lumen Gentium, no. 16. In its pastoral constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, Vatican II explains how this possibility of salvation for non-Christians is realized: “For since Christ died for everyone, since all are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (no. 22).

[5] Lumen Gentium, no.17.

[6] Ad Gentes, no. 3.

[7] Ad Gentes, no. 9.

[8] Ad Gentes, no. 11.

[9] Ad Gentes, no. 2.

[10] Nostra Aetate, no. 4.

[11] Ibid. The council goes on to say: “Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (see John 19:6), neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion. It is true that the church is the new people of God, yet the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.” The council “deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews” (no. 4).

[12] See P. Knitter, Introducing Theologies of Religions ( Maryknoll , NY : Orbis Books, 2002).

[13] The English text of the declaration and a critical evaluation of it are available in Sic et Non: Encountering Dominus Iesus, ed. Stephen J. Pope and Charles Hefling ( Maryknoll , N.Y. : Orbis Books, 2002). The subtitle of Dominus Iesus reads: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. The declaration will be cited by giving the number of its paragraphs.

[14] The expressions in quotation marks are headings of the various sections of the declaration.

[15] See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, 11, 8.

[16] See J. Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism ( Maryknoll , N.Y. : Orbis Books, 199) 283.

[17] The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, Part I, § 21: “What has already been accomplished in Christ must yet be accomplished in us and in the world. The definitive fulfillment will be at the end with the resurrection of the dead, a new heaven and a new earth. Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. It can become for us Christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. Like them, we too live in expectation. The difference is that for us the One who is to come will have the traits of the Jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us.”