Download HTTP://WWW

DR. VÍCTOR MANUEL FERNÁNDEZ
Facultad de Teología (School of Theology )
UCA
Buenos Aires
NEW PROPOSAL TO RECONSIDER THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH
INTERPRETATION OF THE HEBREW BIBLE AFTER THE SHOAH
There were Christians among those responsible for the Shoah, and above all,
among those who tolerated and assisted it impassively, without reacting, within and
outside the horrible scenarios of the massacre1. Although God kept asking “Where is
your brother?”, many simply continued with their lives, as if saying: “Am I the keeper
of my brother?” (Gn 4: 9). Millions of Christians left victims alone:
“Sunken in the realm of night. Forgotten by God, abandoned by Him, they lived
alone, suffered alone, they fought alone [...] Alone. This is the keyword, the
obsessing issue. Alone, without any allies or friends, totally and desperately
alone. The world knew it and remained silent[...] Humanity let them suffer,
agonize and die alone.”2
1. The Messianic comprehension of the New Testament under discussion.
How can anybody understand that such brutality was perpetrated and tolerated in
a world where God had already sent His Messiah and in a place where many believed in
Jesus Christ? This question urges us Christians to reconsider our understanding of the
coming of the Messiah to promote, together with Judaism, a new waiting attitude based
The Dabru Emet statement underlines that “without the long history of Christian anti-Judaism and
Christian violence against Jews, Nazi ideology could not have taken hold nor could it have been carried
out. Too many Christians participated in, or were sympathetic to, Nazi atrocities against the Jews. Other
Christians did not protest sufficiently against these atrocities.” (item 5). This Jewish document, dated
10/09/2000, is a Jewish answer celebrating the change in the Christian attitude toward Judaism. The
initiative arose from religious and academic Jewish leaders. The document includes 172 signatures: 159
from the United States and 13 from Great Britain, Canada and Israel. It is the result of five years of study
and dialogue. It was signed by four leaders chosen by the group, who represent the four branches of
modern Judaism: orthodox, conservative, reformist and reconstructionist.
2
E. WIESEL, The Holocaust as literary inspiration, in L. B. SMITH (ed), Dimensions of the Holocaust,
Evanston, 1977, 7; cf. C. VIDAL, El Holocausto, Madrid, 1995, 173-176.
1
1
on humility and plea. After Auschwitz, can we be so quick to say that Christianism is
the only way to reach salvation, that Christian faith is self-sufficient, that it is the model
of humanity par excellence, that it has little to learn from others because it has the
whole truth?
Something failed in Christianism, making it possible for Christians to
participate, through their actions or permission, in such a massacre. It is not enough to
mention the darkness of the doctrine regarding the holy and inviolable dignity of all
human beings, created in the image of God, since victims were not only human beings.
It had been decided that, above all, they had to be Jews. What Jews had to go through is
out of proportion to what was inflicted on other social groups. Nazis’ aims, by their own
internal logic, were directly obsessed with exterminating the Jews.
We can not deny that there are ways of understanding the Christian doctrine that
end up providing, even today, a framework to support and approve of anti-Jewish
convictions. That is why we can say that “Christian theology after Auschwitz should be
guided by an awareness that Christians can form and understand their identity only if
they take Jews into account [...] This is not about revising Christian theology regarding
Judaism but about revising Christian theology as such”,
3
including our conception of
the Messiah.
If the Messianic promise of the OT has been fulfilled by Jesus, its current
meaning appears to be denied or relativized and it is difficult to believe that the Jewish
religion still has something to contribute to the world and to Christians.
Let us better say that we still need to listen to the Promise made to the Jews. It is
necessary to stop at the promise – together with and thanks to the Jews – and to perceive
its denseness in order to appreciate its fulfillment properly. That is because it is only
possible to discover Jesus by “turning to the Jews and receiving their messianic promise
as stated in the Old Testament” (CCE 528). The grace offered to us should be received
with faith as an answer to that Promise. 4
On the other hand, is the Promise really accomplished? Who can sincerely
assert that the Messianic fullness has arrived, with the justice, harmony and universal
peace announced by the prophets? A Jewish person sensitive to present-day injustices
3
4
J.-B. METZ, “Teología cristiana después de Auschwitz”, in Concilium 195, Madrid, 1984, 209.
Cf. J.-M. LUSTIGER, Palabras sencillas de Navidad, Madrid, 1994, 20-21.
2
may legitimately ask: “If the Messiah has already come, how do we realize? What
differences can we see in the world? 5
Even though the Messiah has come and fulfilled the promises, it is also true that
we are still waiting for those promises to be completely fulfilled. Because “What has
already been accomplished in Christ must yet be accomplished in us and in the world
[…] Jewish Messianic expectation is not in vain” 6. Jesus’ arrival has not brought
plenitude to history, which is claiming for the liberation (Rm 8: 18-25) that will come
with the Messianic Reign.
Indeed, the dialogue with Judaism could afford Christians a revival of the wait
for the Messiah. Although it is true that for Christians the Messiah has already come, it
is also true that we are waiting and imploring his arrival (under the name of the
“return”). The Church is not the Reign of God, it is just the origin or beginning of it (cf.
LG 9) and it must wait for the establishment of the Reign in full, although, in history, it
is in the service of such establishment. It often needs to revive its awareness that it is a
community of people who wait for the Arrival of the Lord, its conviction that it is
unfinished, so as not to become too eroded or self-indulgent, as if it were the center of
history. Otherwise, our faith will end up mutilated or distorted. Thus, by encouraging
hope, the Church also rediscovers its bond with Judaism from the point of view of the
goal and not just the origin:
“In underlining the eschatological dimension of Christianity we shall reach a
greater awareness that the people of God of the Old and the New Testament
are tending towards a like end in the future: the coming or return of the
Messiah – even if they start from two different points of view. It is more clearly
understood that the person of the Messiah is not only a point of division for the
people of God but also a point of convergence” (Notes 10).7
For that reason, in light of such a terrible event as the Shoah, regretting the past
is not enough: we must realize that we have been called to wait for the messianic world
5
Cf. K. STERN, Le Buisson ardent, Paris, 1951, 183.
PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION, The Jewish people and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian
Bible, Roma, 2001, point 21, 5. Hereinafter quoted as PJ and the corresponding item.
7
Cf. Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman
Catholic Church, Roma, 24/06/1985, item 8. Hereinafter quoted as Notes. Cf. also Catechism of the
Catholic Church 840.
6
3
and stop thinking that it has already come. So, “it is not only a question of recalling the
past. The common future of Jews and Christians demands that we remember”.8
Auschwitz destroyed a distorted way of understanding what has already been
accomplished:
“After Auschwitz, Christians can no longer assert that they were fully
redeemed by Jesus Christ. In light of the Holocaust, Christians started to move toward a
new sense of non-redemption [...] with the reappearance of an earthly and communal
yearning for the fulfillment of all divine promises in history.”
9
Therefore, Jews and
Christians can work together for justice and peace, to cooperate with the long-expected
arrival of the messianic plenitude. 10
On the other hand, Saint Paul speaks of some sort of eschatological restoration
(not “conversion”) of the Jewish People (Rm 11: 23-33), which does not necessarily
imply the Christianization of all Jews in temporal history, 11 but a purely gratuitous
action of the Messiah (cf. Is 59: 20-21, quoted in Rm 11: 26-27), in compliance with
the old promises that assure the faithfulness of God (cf. Ez 16: 59-60; Rm 11: 28-29).
Our difficulty in imagining “how” such a restoration would be achieved was shared by
Saint Paul, who, when speaking about this topic, presented it as a “mystery” that
prevents us from being conceited (Rm 11: 25). From this point of view, we can say that
the future Messiah the Jews are waiting for coincides with Paul’s12 description in Rm
11: 26-27:
“And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written: The Liberator will
come from Zion. He will turn away godlessness from Jacob. And this will be
My covenant with them when I take away their sins.”
That is to say: he who will definitively rescue all Jews will be the Christ
(Israel’s anointed one: the expected “Messiah”) when the end of the times comes. Thus,
8
COMMISSION FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS, We remember: a reflection on the Shoah,
Roma, 16/03/1998, 1. It is worth mentioning that within Judaism, Messianism has taken different forms,
more or less consistent with Christian faith or with different aspects of Christian faith (which received the
messianic perspective from Judaism): Cf. different articles of Concilium 245, Estella, 1993.
9
G. BAUM, “El Holocausto y la teología política”, in Concilium 195, Madrid, 1984, 229. Cf. J.
PAWLIKOWSKI, Sinai and Calvary, Beverly Hills, 1976, 222.
10
For the same reason, we have to be careful when talking about the “Christian plenitude,” and the
“plenitude in sense” that we Christians supposedly find in the Hebrew Bible.
11
Cf. H. U. VON BALTHASAR, “Cuestión disputada: El problema Iglesia-Israel”, in Communio (Spain),
May 1995, 181-182; E. PETERSEN, Die Kirche aus Juden und Heiden, Salzburg, 1933.
12
At least this is what the rabbinical doctrine of the aeones shows: Cf. C. KESSLER, “Le plus grand
commandement de la Loi”, in Sources Vives 72 (Paris 1997) 97.
4
the Christ (i.e., Jesus, for Christians) will fulfill the hope of the Jews, who wait for a
Messiah. In this sense "the Church understands that She is not the aim and the goal of
the will of God regarding Israel.” 13
It is true that Jews still lack “full knowledge,” according to Paul. In fact, we
could also affirm that about Christians. However, we can not ignore the statement in 10:
4: “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.” As I see it, this phrase repeats the
idea we support. The Law will be fully accomplished for Jews when Jesus Christ returns
at the end of times. The same will be true for Christians. On the other hand, let us
remark that in 10: 4 Paul does not use the name “Jesus” but “Christ”, that is to say “the
Messiah”. Therefore, he is not urging Jews to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. It is
true that in 10: 9 he urges Christians to confess Jesus as Lord; however, when in 10: 1213 he states a common requirement for Jews and Greeks, he only refers to calling on the
name of the “Lord”, making a reference to Jl 3: 5. We should not overlook Paul’s
permanent tactfulness: he refrains from urging the Jews to confess Jesus as a condition
to reach salvation and and he prefers to take refuge in the gratuitous and always loyal
love of God, who drew up an irrevocable Covenant with the Jews: “God’s gracious gifts
and calling are irrevocable” (Rm 11: 29).
2. The need to eliminate the anti-Jewish interpretation of the Bible
Dabru Emet points out that the main weakness of the Christian stance before
the Shoah was based on a declaration of the uselessness and irrelevance of the Jewish
People: “Throughout the nearly two millennia of Jewish exile, Christians have tended to
characterize Judaism as a failed religion or, at best, a religion that prepared the way for,
and is completed in, Christianity” (Introd). This is the key to understand the theological
roots of the Shoah.
Theology should therefore enquire into why these roots are still present and
remove them, so that nobody may base their anti-Semitism on Christian faith; and so
that any Christian who hears anti-Jewish statements may spontaneously react.
Otherwise, we, theologians, become accomplices of those who tolerated Nazism. The
International Theological Committee, following request from John Paul II, gave some
reasons why the Church should ask for forgiveness. In this context, the Church, after
13
K. BARTH, Kirchliche Dogmatik II/2, 1942, 323.
5
claiming that there is a way of living the present that makes us accomplices of past
events
14
and expressing that “the request for forgiveness applies to whatever should
have been done or was passed over in silence (…), to what was done or said hesitantly
or inappropriately”15 recognizes that in the Shoah “the spiritual resistance and concrete
action of other Christians was not that which might have been expected from Christ’s
followers.”16 Taking this reflection into account, we wonder whether our ideas are still
analogous to the ones that directly or indirectly paved the way to the Shoah, which
would make us sympathetic to those who tolerated or condoned said massacre.
In fact, even today there are some people who think that Jews have nothing
specific to contribute, since the religious faith which represented them has already
fulfilled its historic purpose. This opinion encourages the more or less conscious idea
that their disappearance would not affect humanity. Thus, it is proved that the principles
that safeguard the dignity and inviolability of every human life are not enough to
unblock the evil mechanisms which gave rise to the Shoah. In this case, it is also
necessary to develop the conviction that, after Jesus, the Jewish people has to fulfill an
aim in its concrete historic and religious reality, and that Christians need the
contribution of present-day Judaism. This is especially useful for the interpretation of
the Scriptures: “One of the main factors leading to the development of anti-semitism
was the fact that Christians appropriated the right to interpret the Scriptures […].
Therefore, Christianity became the new Israel, the religion which surpassed and
superseded Judaism, which in turn, was explicitly or implicitly deprived of any right to
exist from the religious and human point of view.”17 That is why, after the Shoah, the
reconsideration of the image of God or Jesus Christ is not enough. Above all, the
biblical hermeneutics has to be reconsidered: “The horror in the wake of the
extermination of the Jews (the Shoah) during the Second World War has led all the
Churches to rethink their relationship with Judaism and, as a result, to reconsider their
interpretation of the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament” (PJ 22).
3. Limitations of a Christological interpretation
14
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION, Memoria y Reconciliación. La Iglesia y las culpas del
pasado, Roma, 2000. Spanish Edition of BAC, Madrid, 2000, 66.
15
Ibíd., 78. Quotes John Paul II’s speech of 02/09/1999.
16
Ibíd., 85. Quotes the document We remember (cit).
17
M. KNUTSEN, “El Holocausto en la filosofía y la teología”, in Concilium 195 (cit.) 284.
6
It is a fact that after the Second Vatican Council, in particular after Nostra
Aetate 4, the relationships with Judaism improved. Nevertheless, these relationships are
usually mere diplomatic approaches, full of kindness, but diplomatic after all.
Frequently, when theologians and biblical exegetes want to praise Judaism, they are not
really talking about the significance of present-day Judaism but of the Judaism prior to
Jesus.
Indeed, some people think they are open to dialogue with Judaism only
because they insist on the permanent importance of the Hebrew Bible [OT]: “An effort
should be made to better understand the aspects of the OT that have a perennial value of
their own, since this value has not been destroyed by the later interpretation of the New
Testament.”18 Unlike Marcion’s heretic beliefs, we should remember that the Jewish
Bible is the Word of God, an inspired text offering knowledge of the true God. Indeed,
the writings of the New Testament [NT] “acknowledge that the Jewish Scriptures have a
permanent value as divine revelation.” (PJ 8) This has consequences in preaching:
“When commenting on biblical texts, emphasis will be laid on the continuity of our
faith with that of the earlier Covenant, in the perspective of the promises, without
minimizing those elements of Christianity which are original” (Guidel. 2).
However, that may mean that the OT only gives arguments in favor of our
faith in Jesus as the Messiah or illustrates our Christian convictions, which makes the
OT depend on the Christian doctrine again.. Today it is particularly necessary to admit
that a purely Christological interpretation of the OT is an indication of an attitude which
ended up denying the Jews their right to exist as a believing people. 19
In fact, there still exists a theological belief which, while pretending to explain
what is specific to the Christian faith, states that only the revelation of the Christian
Trinity allows us to meet the true God, as if the God the Jews find in the Torah were
not the same and only Lord. They seem to ignore that, in the Gospels, Jesus (himself a
Jew) says: “We worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews” (Jn 4: 22).
Other respectable theologians, in a more subtle way, end up developing the same
contrast when they declare that “outside the neotestamentary mystery, which we can
only grasp and maintain thanks to the relationship between Jesus and his Divine Father
and thanks to his promise regarding the Holy Ghost, human coexistence has no value by
Guidelines and Suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration “Nostra Aetate”4, Rome,
12/01/1974, item 2b. Hereinafter quoted as Guidel.
19
Cf. M. KNUTSEN, “El Holocausto en la filosofía y la teología” (cit.) 284
18
7
itself.”
20
Does this mean that Jews’ faith in YHWH cannot give human coexistence a
value of its own?
Actually, the importance of the OT is not expressly denied, but its value is
only acknowledged if it is read in the light of the NT. This is a way of declaring the OT
irrelevant in practice, since what really counts is what the NT expresses more clearly.
This has another consequence: if the reading of the OT is exclusively aimed at what is
revealed in the NT, the interpretation of the Scriptures made by a modern Jew is of no
use for Christians. Thus, the way Jews understand their own Scriptures is considered
useless.
In fact, a proper Christian interpretation tries to exploit the inexhaustible
denseness of the Hebrew Bible, its constant openness in terms of sense, but it also
recognizes that its interpretation does not empty the unlimited sea to which we can
compare the Scriptures. This reinterpretation in the light of the Christian novelty is not a
process created by Christians, since “in Judaism, re-readings were commonplace” (PJ
19, A, 2), and the Holy Scriptures remained always open.
To illustrate this idea, we may refer to Isaiah 1: 17, applied by Saint Mathew
to Jesus (Mt 1: 20-23). The original historical sense of this prophetic text did not
include a Messianic announcement but a promise made to King Ajaz in a situation of
fear and distrust. It was in fact a message of consolation to a people surrounded by
bitterness and insecurity. It is possible to analyze this text by simply considering its
original historical sense. But we can also broaden the perspective by recognizing that
Isaiah himself (in 9: 5-6) extends the promises to the whole dynasty of David up to the
time of the Messiah, when peace will have no end. Therefore, Christians can
legitimately apply these promises to Jesus, since He is himself part of that dynasty,
which inherited the prophetic promise, even though said promise may not be completely
fulfilled yet.
This example allows us to discover that the application to Jesus Christ made
by the NT is not necessarily opposed to a non-Christological interpretation: there may
be continuity between both of them. And even this interpretation does not necessarily
have to be Christological. A Jewish –non-Christological- interpretation of a text can
basically coincide with the interpretation made by Christians, even more if we assume
an hermeneutic principle highlighted by the Catholic Teaching, according to which the
20
H. U. VON BALTHASAR, Teodramática II, Madrid, 1992, 190.
8
allegoric, typological or Christological sense has to be based on the literal meaning of
the texts, which is the first meaning that has to be taken into account,
21
even when this
literal meaning leads to permanent reinterpretations. Thomas Aquinas claimed that we
can not validly argue on the basis of the allegoric sense but only on the basis of the
literal one (ST I, 1, 10, ad 1). This preference for the literal sense has been clearly
accepted by Catholic exegetes and “the critical study of the OT has progressed steadily
in that direction” (PJ 20, 4). The Pontifical Biblical Commission has clearly expressed
the need to respect the historical sense of the texts without attempting to show their
orientation to Jesus: “All the texts, including those that were later read as Messianic
prophecies, already had an immediate import and meaning for their contemporaries […]
Accordingly, excessive insistence, characteristic of a certain apologetic, on the
evidentiary value attributable to the fulfillment of prophecy must be discarded. This
insistence has contributed to harsh judgments by Christians of Jews and their reading of
the Old Testament: the more reference to Christ is found in Old Testament texts, the
more the incredulity of the Jews is considered inexcusable and obstinate” (PJ 21,5).
In fact, “the messianism of Jesus has a meaning that is new and original”
(ibíd) which is not deduced from the OT. Therefore, it is not appropriate to reduce the
meaning of the old texts to a prefiguration of Jesus, playing down their own value.
Nowadays, what we are seeking is “a Christian interpretation of the Old Testament that
would avoid arbitrariness and respect the original meaning” (PJ 20, 4) in line with the
Jewish reading. Indeed, in its Christological “reinterpretation”, the NT “only offers a
limited number of examples, not a methodology.”(PJ 19, A, 1). This invites us to stop
“wishing to find everywhere direct reference to Jesus and to Christian realities.” (PJ
21,6)
4. How the OT and the Jewish traditions help to understand the language of the
NT
Today it is recognized that a complete interpretation of the NT is impossible
without knowing the OT, since in the Bible “no word devalues the previous one, each
word contributes to understanding the whole.”22 The NT “receives both light and
21
PIOUS XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943): DS 3826-3829
FRENCH EPISCOPAL COMMITTEE FOR RELATIONS WITH JUDAISM, “Leer el AT,” in Boletín del
Secretariado de la Conferencia de obispos de Francia, June 1977, IIf.
22
9
clarification” from the OT (DV 16). YHWH did not instill some totally new words and
imagery in the authors of the NT; they wrote with the same language they had learnt in
their cultural context, that of the Hebrew Bible. Paying little attention to the specific
message of the OT is a hindrance to the full understanding of the NT. We should
remember that the stories found in the Gospels are not descriptions or chronicles but
theological readings of the events. The accounts of the passion of Jesus, for instance, are
a theological interpretation of the actual events which make a reference to the texts of
the suffering Servant described by Isaiah (in the Synoptic Gospels) and Zechariah (in
the Gospel according to John) in order to make those events have sense. Without the
background of the Hebrew Bible, we would not be able to understand the deep meaning
of the Gospels. The so-called “demythologization” of new testament language, which
completely isolates it from the Jewish language and mentality with which it was
expressed, is no guarantee of a better understanding of that message. Rather, it is a way
of making the texts say things that are in the modern mind of the alleged interpreter: “If
we ignore this Jewish context of Jesus’ preaching, are we not falling back on the
pretension criticized by Paul which makes us place the insanity of the cross in speeches
of wisdom?”23 Disregarding the OT and forgetting that Jesus was fully Jewish in his
character, language, education, history, and way of praying is equivalent to going back
to an idea of the Jesus of faith totally separated from the Jesus of history.24 This implies
a subtle and risky docetism, since the Shoah came about, among other reasons, because
we forgot the concrete historical factors “which prevailed in the liberal world.”25
Having faith in the Incarnation requires reading the Gospels with Jewish eyes, because
“depriving Christ of his relationship with the OT means separating Him from his roots
and emptying his mystery of all meaning.”26
However, this assessment of the Hebrew Bible is still merely instrumental,
since it is appreciated merely as a tool serving the Christian message. Even though the
contributions of the OT are more than illustrations, they only facilitate the access to the
only content that matters: that of the NT.
B.-D. DUPUY, “¿Qué significa para el cristianismo que Jesús fuera judío?”, in Concilium 98, Madrid,
1974, 285.
24
Cf. P. G. ARING, “La christologie dans le dialogue judéo-chrétien aujourd’hui”, in Istina 31, 1986, 371.
25
E. SCHÜSSLER FIORENZA-D. TRACY, “La interrupción del Holocausto, retorno cristiano a la historia”,
in Concilium 195 (cit) 295.
26
JOHN PAUL II, “Discurso a la Pontificia Comisión bíblica”, in L’ Ossevatore romano 16, 18/04/1997, 4
(184).
23
10
Others go even further and claim that the NT can not be understood if we do not know
the traditions and the language of the post-exile period, which influenced the language
and figures used in the NT. Even Jesus “used teaching methods similar to those
employed by the rabbis of His time” (Guidel. 3e). That is why “Jews recognized in
Jesus tones which were familiar to them […]. An open-minded Jew is always deeply
impressed by Jesus’ face and understands that he is a Jew speaking to the Jews.” 27 It
will be surely difficult to understand from inside the meaning of new testament texts if
we do not make ourselves familiar with the language and internal logic of pre-Christian
Jewish traditions. We should also notice that Jesus’ resurrection was understood by
Saint Paul according to his convictions as a believing Pharisee (cf. Rm 4: 17.24; 1 Co
15: 12-16).
But this is only enough to appraise the hermeneutic contribution of Jewish
traditions prior or contemporary to the NT, not of Judaism subsequent to Jesus or
modern Judaism. This point of view could lead us to think that after the arrival of the
Christian “plenitude”, any subsequent Jewish development is irrelevant.
5. Overcoming the “substitution”
When trying to find a Christian way of reading the Hebrew Bible which does not
declare modern Jewish contributions useless, destroying the foundations of the
"substitution" model becomes a pressing need. It is this model that better lends itself to
declaring Judaism expired and unnecessary, for having been superseded and substituted
by Christianity.
A usual mistake in Christian teachings of the XX century was a certain
obsession with emphasizing the distinctive features of Christ’s teachings as if their
value lay in what had not been said before. Thus, some degree of Marcionism was
restored:
“Everything seems to suggest that the pedagogy of the Old Testament was
hardly necessary . Because it had established a provisional regime, it had to
disappear with the coming of Jesus in the same way a shadow is replaced by
light, the old by the young, the ancient by the new. That manner of presenting
D. FLUSSER, “¿Hasta qué punto puede ser Jesús un problema para los judíos?”, in Concilium 98 (cit)
279. There are several Jewish testimonies in Sources Vives 72 (cit) 165-175.
27
11
the coming of the Lord transforms the preceding history in something empty
and vain.”28
Many Bible experts hold that the “substitution” model appears in the Letter to
the Hebrews when it refers to priesthood and the ancient cult (7-10), especially when it
says: “So the previous commandment is annulled because it was weak and unprofitable”
(7: 18). However, the author of this piece of writing explains Jesus’ priesthood by
referring to the Hebrew Bible in order to connect this priesthood with that of
Melchizedek (cf. Heb 7: 11-17). In fact, the aim of this text is to legitimate the freedom
of Christians, who are also heirs to the Promise of living their faith without having to
comply with all Jewish cultual requirements (cf. Heb 7: 26-28; 10: 11-16). This is so
because the announcement is fulfilled in them: “I will put My laws into their minds and
I will write them on their hearts”(Heb 8: 10, repeated in 10; 16).
On the other hand, it is necessary to read the whole NT, where we can also
find a positive assessment of the Jewish cult, because “they are Israelites, and to them
belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple service
…” (Rm 9, 4-5), and also the promises that “our twelve tribes hope to attain as they
earnestly serve Him night and day” (Acts 26, 6-7).29
Thus, there is not a unanimous perspective of “substitution” in the NT. That is
why even when most of the letter to the Hebrews partially places us in that perspective
–which in any case is valid for Christians, not for Jews-, there are no reasons for
generalizing that way of reading the Hebrew Bible or for reducing the whole reading of
the OT to that model, because “the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament is then
a differentiated one, depending on the different genres of texts.” (PJ 21, 6).
In other cases, there is no real “substitution.”. It is true that when referring to
the love for the enemies, it seems that the NT makes a substitution of some precepts of
the OT (cf. Mt 5: 38-48). It also questions the forgetfulness of the commandments as a
consequence of following secondary Jewish traditions (cf. Mt 15: 3-9; Mc. 7: 8-13).
However, it is only arguing with some branches of the Judaism of the time and not with
Judaism in general or with the OT. Precisely because of that, when engaged in this
arguing, the NT uses texts of the OT (cf. Is 29: 13 in Mt 15: 3-9).
28
FRENCH EPISCOPAL COMMITTEE FOR RELATIONS WITH JUDAISM (cit), IIIb.
The same text of Hebrews requires an even more careful analysis because, in fact, it does not say that
the old Covenant has disappeared, but that it is “about to disappear” (Heb 8, 13; cf. vv 4-5) because this
author was still waiting the imminent coming of the fullness of times: “For in yet a very little while, the
Coming One will come and not delay” (Heb 10: 36-37; cf.12, 26-27).
29
12
Consequently, what some people wrongly called “substitution” should be
understood as another way of deepening the same line of evolution that began in the
OT. This is the point of view of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, which
states that the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount arise out of the ancient Law: “the
Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions
of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them”
(CEC 1968). In fact, the Jesus who appears in the Gospels expressly states that He “did
not come to destroy the Law” (Mt 5: 17; Lc 10: 26).
In Jesus there is no “personal whim to challenge the established order [but] a
most profound fidelity to the will of God expressed in the Scriptures.”30 He appears as
an interpreter of the religious traditions of his people. The Jesus presented by the
Gospels was a practicing Jew,31 who never stopped inviting his people to abide by the
Law: “What is written in the Law?” (Lk 10: 25-28), praising the good sense of some
scribes (Mk 12: 34). For Jesus “until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter
or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law” and He invited people to fulfill the
commandments (Mt 5: 17-19) and other Jewish practices (Mt 6: 17-18). He also praised
the scribe converted to Christianity who brings out of his storeroom “what is old” (Mt
13: 52). We should notice how the phrase “without neglecting the others” (Mt 23: 23;
Lk 11: 42), clearly gives value to Jewish practices.
If we specifically consider love to one’s neighbour, there are many Jewish
texts, especially of the post exile period, which give priority to being merciful towards
our neighbour as an ethical requirement to please God (cf. Dn 4: 24; Is 1: 11-18; 58: 610; Deuterocanonic books: Tb 4: 7-11; 12: 9; Sir 3: 30-4,6; 29: 12-13), which is
evidently reaffirmed in the NT (St 1: 27; 2: 15-17; Ga 5: 13-14; Lk 6: 36-38; Mt 25: 3146; 1 Jn 3: 14-18).
Both the mandate stating that you shall love your neighbour as yourself and
the golden rule requiring us to stand in others’ shoes are not an absolute Christian
novelty;32 they were already present in the pre-Christian Jewish tradition (Lv 19: 18;
Tb 4: 15).33
The OT has beautiful invitations to respond to evil with good. It also
30
PONT. BIB. COM. , La Interpretación de la Biblia en la Iglesia, Roma, 1993, IV, A, 2. Hereinafter IBI.
SOEUR MARIE-PASCALE, Jésus, fils d’Israël, en Sources Vives (cit), 63-68.
32
D. MARGUERAT, Le judgement dans l’Évangile de Matthieu, Ginebra, 1987, 120 and note 38.
33
Hillel held that the main point of the Law is not doing to others what you do not want done to yourself
and that the rest is but a comment (Tb Shabbat 30b-31a). Rabbi Aquiba claimed that loving your
neighbour as oneself is the central commandment (Midrash Sifra about Leviticus, n. 89b, about Lev. 19:
18). Cf. also Targum Neofiti of Dt. 34: 6. We could also mention the synthesis, so much repeated in
31
13
encourages us to love and forgive the one who has caused us harm (Gn 45: 1-15; Ex 23:
4; Pr 24: 17; Jb 31: 29). In Pr 25: 21 it is important to notice the term “enemy” in order
to discover how the invitation to love and forgive our enemy was anticipated in the OT.
An example of this love for the enemy is found in David, in 1 Sm 24: 12-20.
Another controversial point appears when it is said that the NT introduces an
ideal of trustful love, while the OT proposed a religion based on fear, or when it is
asserted that the ethics of the NT is centred in divine action and the trust in God, while
the OT was centred in external compliance with the law and focused on human acts.
Even if it is true that some assertions of Saint Paul appear to confirm this viewpoint
(Rm 7: 6; 8: 3; Ga 2: 19; 3: 13), we cannot ignore that both Paul and Jesus, as presented
by Saint John, were opposed to a Jewish branch existing at that time, which
nevertheless did not represent neither Judaism as a whole nor the best post exile Jewish
traditions. We also know that there existed a good deal of conflict among the various
branches of phariseeism, which is clearly evidenced by the Talmud.34
We should pay special attention to Paul’s case. I have already done so in
another article35 where I tried to show that Paul derives his doctrine of the “justification
by faith and not by the acts of the Law” precisely from the Jewish substratum.
Consequently, although the expression seems to refer to “substitution”, the doctrine is
clearly in the line of Jewish traditions which firmly condemn any form of idolatry.
Because if we assert that one’s own justification is achieved by complying with the Law
with one’s own forces and without divine help, we would be guilty of the worst of
idolatries, which involves adoring oneself, one’s own forces and acts, instead of adoring
the one and only God. A recent echo of this ancient Jewish belief can be found in the
following phrase of rabbi Israel Baal Shem-Tov (beginning of the XIX c.): “I am much
more afraid of my good deeds that please me, than of my bad deeds that horrify me.” 36
To avoid sterile confrontations, it is necessary to observe that the expression
“Law” can be understood in many ways not only in Christianity but also in Judaism.
Besides, it is imperative to mention that some of the texts of the OT and several extra
biblical Jewish texts had already shown a religiosity of trust in the love of God and had
Jewish preaching, of Mic. 6: 8. This topic, as related to the Jewish tradition, is developed in C. KESSLER
“Le plus grand commandement de la Loi” (cit).
34
M. COLLIN - P. LENHARDT, Evangelio y tradición de Israel, Estella, 1993, 7; cf. CH. SAULNIER - B.
ROLLAND, Palestina en tiempos de Jesús, Estella, 1979, 53.
35
cf. V.M Fernández, “Le meilleur de la lettre aux Romains procède du judaïsme de Paul”, in Nouvelle
Revue Théologique 124/3, 2002, 403-414.
36
Quoted by E. Wiesel, Celebración jasídica, Salamanca, 2003, 58.
14
encouraged people to comply with the Law for reasons which had been moved in their
hearts by divine action (cf. Jer 31: 3.33-34; Ez 11: 19-20; 36: 25-27; Os 11: 1-9, etc). 37
“Emuná”, the attitude of deep trust in YHWH which leads to the true fulfillment of the
Law, “is at the very heart of the demand of the whole Torah.”38 This necessarily implies
a change from the hearts which, although usually called “new law” by Christianity, was
already present in the OT and Jewish traditions. Neither Christians nor Jews say that it
is worth complying with certain customs without the internal impulse of God’s grace,
which transforms the heart and precedes every good deed. In this sense, we cannot say
that people’s unfaithfulness in the OT destroyed the Covenant, as if God did not have
the first and last word. On the contrary, we should be faithful to the Scriptures and even
to Saint Paul and think that God goes beyond unfaithfulness and does not revoke the
Covenant He makes it possible to fulfill it in another way.39 I believe that Jewish
theology actually agrees with the Christian doctrine on this point, especially if we begin
by reading Jeremiah and Ezekiel. How can we not see in Rm. 2: 28-29 a continuation
and a deepening of Jer 4: 4; 9: 24-25?
We, Jews and Christians, recognize that the external law alone cannot change
us without the purifying and transforming action of God (Ez 36: 25-27), which for us,
began to be present in His Messiah (Ga 2: 20-21). On the other hand, let us remember
that according to Saint Augustine’s and Saint Thomas’ very profound interpretations of
Paul’s theology of the new law, the sterility of an external law without divine grace is
not a characteristic of Jewish Law, but also of the precepts that Jesus himself left us:
“the letter, even of the Gospel, would kill, unless there were the inward presence of the
healing grace of faith.” 40
Therefore, we can say that, with his doctrine of justification, Paul was being
fully faithful to the deepest nucleus of Judaism, not opposing it. Although sometimes his
paternal fervor to defend the rights of converted pagans led him to express himself in a
37
The text in Hab 2:4, which expresses this basic attitude, is actually quoted by Saint Paul when talking
about justification by faith in Gal. 3: 11 and in Rom. 1: 17.
38
cf. C. KESSLER, « Le plus grand commandement de la Loi » (cit) 97. It is worth mentioning that Paul’s
assertions about an “expiration” of the Law should also be placed in the context of the “rabbinical
doctrine of the aeons”, according to which at the end of times the instinct of evil will be eradicated from
human hearts and external law will no longer be necesary. Paul thought that he was living at the end of
times and he hoped for an imminent return of the Messiah : “Paul was a pharisee who was convinced that
he was living at messianic times” : H.J. SCHOEPS, Paul. The theology of the Apostle in the light of Jewish
religious story, Filadelfia, 1961, 113. For this reason, in 1 Timothy, when the expectation of an imminent
coming had been largely mitigated, the law acquired greater importance (1 Tm 1: 8-9).
39
E. MAIN, « Ancienne et nouvelle Alliances dans le dessein de Dieu », in Nouvelle Revue Théologique,
118/1, 1196, 34-57.
40
S. Thomas, ST I-II, 106, 2.
15
seemingly anti-jewish manner, what he expressed was a passionate concern for
facilitating pagans’ access to that deepest nucleus of Judaism which Christianity was
engaged in deepening and communicating to all nations.
For this reason, we can say that, at the very moment of his meeting with Jesus
Christ, Paul discovered that Christianity was the proper way to fulfill his vocation –
which he had before he met Christ- of being a missionary Jew. At that moment he
understood that, through Christianity, Israel could fully become the “light of nations.”
In fact, post-Pauline history confirmed this intuition:
“Although the missionary spirit that the Hebrews manifested with fervor and
effectiveness was strong, it became weak and disappeared after the decline of
the nation. This caused a total transformation of Talmudic thought on
proselytism. In fact, the energy of the survivors of the great massacres had to
be devoted to safeguarding the Torah, for the survival of the Hebrew people
[...] This withdrawing into itself of the Hebrew thought was a clear
consequence of a new situation: the exile. Hebrews’ aim is no longer to
convert others, but to survive and remain faithful to their own roots.”41
What Paul perceived since his meeting with Jesus, allowed him to remain fully
and profoundly Jewish and, at the same time, to achieve in Christianity the maturity of
the missionary vocation which had filled him. Many centuries later, a Jewish
philosopher identified Judaism with a star, a dense nucleus of life which is preserved,
and Christianity with the rays that disseminate it in the world, 42 thus suggesting a new
way of considering the legitimacy of Christianity and at the same time the permanent
need for Judaism:
“Thus, before God, both Jews and Christians are workers doing the same
work [...]. The truth, the whole truth, does not belong neither to us nor to
them. In fact, we also carry it within ourselves; but when we want to look at it
we have to look deep into ourselves: then, we see the star but not its rays. And
41
A. CHOURAQUI, Il pensiero hebraico, Brescia, 1989, 42. Cardinal Ratzinger also saw Christianity as a
means through which Isarel keeps fulfilling its missionary dimension, since “above all, it can be said
that, with Jesus, the Bible of Israel reached the non -Jewish population and became their Bible”. That is
why Jesus could be recognised by Jew as “the Servant of God, who takes the light of His God to the
peoples” : J. RATZINGER, « El diálogo de las religiones y la relación judeo-cristiana », in Communio
(Spain), April 1999, 206.
42
cf. F. ROSENZWEIG, La estrella de la redención, Salamanca, 1997, 411.
16
the whole truth means not only seeing its light, but also all that it illuminates..
They, instead, are doomed to see what is illuminated, but not the light.”43
Although greater accuracy may be expected in the way both missions are
expressed, Rosenzweig’s proposal is valuable because it shows a way of understanding
the relation between Christianity and Judaism which abolishes the substitution model..
6. A Christological reading that accepts the current Jewish reading
The supremacy of the literal sense of biblical texts leads us to stress that every
text from the OT has its own nucleus of truth which has perennial value, regardless of
its secondary and temporary aspects. The Christian reading does not deny this central
and original nucleus of each text, rather, it should always assume it and incorporate it.
This opens the possibility of conducting Judaeo-Christian biblical studies, particularly if
we begin by considering the original historical value of the texts.
However, saying this is is not enough, as it does not completely express the
contribution made by the Jews to the extent they are Jews. The dialogue with Judaism
can go even further, opening sincerely to the current hermeneutics of Judaism. In this
hermeneutics we Christians can discover an opportunity to enhance the very
foundations of Judaism, the permanent substratum of the Christian Faith which is called
to incorporate new developments. This possibility can be explained by saying that the
perennial nucleus of the texts of the OT has undergone a different development in
Jewish traditions, independent of its explicit orientation towards Jesus, which also
arises from reading, meditating, teaching and transmitting the Holy Books within the
context of the Jewish people in the last two thousand years. This development is a
genuine richness that comes from God Himself, as it does not derive from contents that
are false or opposed to the Revelation, nor from any book but from the perennial
nucleus of revealed texts. On the other hand, we may say that the Jewish people receive
special assistance from God when reading the Scriptures, because “the choice of Israel
makes the Jewish people depend directly and formally on the history of salvation.”44
This does not mean that the Jewish development of the biblical text fully
unravels its richness- which is unlimited- nor that it constitutes the whole of its possible
43
Ibid., 486.
I. CONGAR, Diario del Concilio. Cuarta Sesión, Barcelona, 1966, 187-188; also published by L’Ami du
cleregé 41 (195) “La coyuntura de la declaración sobre las religiones no cristianas.”
44
17
effects. The Christian reading, when connecting that text with Christian convictions, is
just one more of its possible and always new developments that helps to “manifest the
unfathomable riches of the Old Testament, its inexhaustible content and the mystery of
which it is full” (Notes 7).45
It is highly valuable to apply the principle of the “history of effect” explained
by Gadamer, which allows us to assert that a reality can also be known by the different
effects it has on history and that it cannot be fully understood if those effects, which are
the result of the contact between that reality and different historical contexts, are not
considered.46 Christianity and post-Jesus Judaism believe in different effects of the
Hebrew Bible, and thus they are complementary ways of understanding it.
Along the same line, let us remember that, also thanks to Gadamer and other
similar hermeneutic schools, it has been better perceived that we only approach a text
from a certain perspective, and that the “prejudices” that come from our own experience
and from the tradition that has molded us are not merely obstacles to be set aside, but
true possibilities of understanding. This enables us to say that each of us, from our
respective religious traditions, may approach a text of the Hebrew Bible from a
particular perspective which allows us to become aware of the richness and other
aspects of that text that a person who does not have that perspective would not
recognize so easily. Hence, the Jewish and Christian reading can be complementary,
and result from the core of the text, which is alive and inexhaustible. If we apply this
principle, we may also say that “a Jew, from his Judaism, can discover in the words of
Jesus aspects that Christians sometimes do not see.”47 For not even the Christian
reading of the NT can exhaust its everlasting vitality and originality.
In order to fully understand up to what extent the Christian reading does not
replace the Jewish one and can, at the same time, accept the contributions of Jewish
hermeneutics, let us look at this bright and audacious paragraph of the Pontifical
Biblical Commission:
“Although the Christian reader is aware that the internal dynamism of the Old
Testament finds its goal in Jesus, this is a retrospective perception whose point
of departure is not in the text as such, but in the events of the New Testament
proclaimed by the apostolic preaching” (PJ 21,6).
Is it not possible to see Christianity as a fruit of Judaism ?: cf. J.-M. LUSTIGER, “Juifs et chrétiens: que
doivent-ils espérer de leur rencontre?”, in Nouvelle revue théologique 124/3, 2002, 361.
46
H. G. GADAMER, Wahrheit und Methode,(Truth and Method) chap. 9, p. 4; Salamanca, 1977, 37 ss.
47
D. FLUSSER, op. cit., 297
45
18
Thus, we are not saying that “the Jew does not see what was announced in the
texts” (ibíd), but that the Christian, in the light of his faith, finds new meanings in the
text. This statement is crucial: the starting point of the Christological reading of the OT
“does not rely on the texts as such.” Therefore, the key lies in better distinguishing the
interpretation of specific texts -which can be easily found to be complementary- from
the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible as a whole. In the interpretation of each
particular text, the Christian exegesis is not immediately Christological; instead, it
focuses on the direct historical meaning of the text and it is perfectly compatible with
the Jewish non-Christological hermeneutics. Indeed, the Christian exegesis can draw,
from this hermeneutics, partial aspects of the revealed truth, which are certainly
valuable to understand each text. Undoubtedly, this allows us to speak of
complementation between the Jewish reading and the Christian reading, just as between
the OT and NT.
However, if the Hebrew Bible is considered as a whole, the Christian sees in it
a movement towards Jesus as the Messiah. That is to say, he cannot but affirm that the
expectation for the Messiah is fulfilled - though not fully- by the coming of Jesus. This
is a reference to the Hebrew Bible as a whole, not to specific texts, whose direct literal
meaning does not properly and immediately refer to Jesus. The Christian reading,
considering the Hebrew Bible as a whole, sees in it a messianic orientation, thus
opening the dynamism of the Hebrew Bible by applying it to Jesus Christ. In this global
sense, the Christian reading is irreducible to the Jewish one, and the Jewish readingwhich does not accept Jesus as the Messiah- is irreducible to the Christian one. “Both
readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings
are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible,”(PJ 22) or “radically
different” (IBI 1, C, 3).
For all this, let us consider the complementation between the two readingsJewish and Christian- of the different texts of the Hebrew Bible without denying the
dialectic relationship between the two Testaments taken as a whole. Hence, let us notice
that the model of “irreducible complementation” becomes a general indispensable
criterion. It is in its light that we should understand any other model of relationship
between Judaism and Christianity. Its value lies in that it allows us to affirm the always
updated fecundity of Judaism while leaving room for its Christian fruits.
7. Acknowledging the never revoked Covenant.
19
From this point of view we can no longer talk about a “rupture.” That is why
the mistake of including the Jews in the “dialogue with other religions” is no longer
made; because “it is evident that, as Christians, our dialogue with the Jews is situated on
a different level than that in which we engage with other religions. The faith witnessed
to by the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament for Christians) is not merely another religion
to us, but is the foundation of our own faith.”48 Nowadays, relations between Jews and
Christians are presented from the point of view of identity. Judaism is a kind of root and
trunk where we have been grafted (cf. Rm 11:16-18) to participate of the “israelitica
dignitas” (CEC 528); that is the reason why Cristianity and Judaism are linked at the
level of their own identity,49 and Christians are part of the heritage of the people of God
bound by the never revoked Old Covenant.”50 Jewish people were not left out of the
Covenant, as if it had been assigned to Christians, rather, the latter participate of the
Covenant which God still maintains with the Jewish people.
But, during the last ten years, it has come as a surprise to find articles of wellknown theologians who assert that God “no longer has reserved preference for a
particular people (...) All men participate in an equal manner and with no rights of
precedence....”51
Certainly, the problem we face when we say that we have spiritual goods
which are part of a heritage shared with the Jews is that we could understand that it is a
richness we “have already received” from Judaism, and that now it is simply ours. Thus,
we can conclude that we are the “new Israel”, heir to the authentic goods of Judaism,
and the one to take its place in the custody of that richness. Therefore, we no longer
need Judaism to contribute something we do not have.
John Paul II avoided this confusion because he pointed out the need to
acknowledge the richness common to Jews and Christians and to make an inventory of
that heritage, not only of that prior to Jesus, but also taking into account the religious
faith and life of the Jewish people, just as it is practised today, since this development
can also help to better understand certain aspects of the life of the Church.52
J. RATZINGER, “La herencia de Abraham”, en L’Osservatore Romano (29/12/2000).
JOHN PAUL II, “Discurso a los delegados de las Conferencias episcopales para las relaciones con el
judaísmo”, 06/03/1982, in La Documentation Cath. 1827 (79, 1982) 339-340.
50
JOHN PAUL II, “Discurso a la comunidad judía en Maguncia”, 17/11/1980, in La Documentation Cath.
1798 (77, 1980) 1148-1149. Cf. N. LOHFINK, La Alianza nunca derogada, Barcelona, 1992
51
J. GALOT, “Le Mystere de la Personne du Pere”, in Gregorianum 77/1, Rome 1996, 19.
52
JOHN PAUL II, Speech of 06/03/1982 (cit).
48
49
20
Recently, a further step was taken when it was accepted that Judaism is a true
salvific path for the Jews. Cardinal Kasper expressed this as follows: “Now we are
aware of God’s unrevoked covenant with his people and of the permanent and actual
salvific significance of Jewish religion for its believers (…) Judaism, that is, the faithful
response of the Jewish people to God's irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them,
because God is faithful to His promises.”53 Therefore, it is not proper to refer to a
Christian mission aimed at converting the Jews, since the “the term mission, in its
proper sense, refers to conversion from false gods and idols to the true and one God.”
Therefore there exists dialogue but there does not exist any Catholic missionary
organisation for Jews.” Christians, as well as Jews, can bear witness to what their faith
means to them. “In doing so, both are far away from any kind of proselytism, but both
can learn from each other and enrich each other” (ibíd). Austrian Evangelists had
previously admitted this idea, without contradicting their conviction of the supremacy
of divine grace and acknowledging a gratuitous gift, which is the Old Covenant:
“Because the covenant of God with his people Israel exists in nothing but
grace to the end of time, mission among Jews is theologically not justifiable
and to be rejected as a church program.”54
If we say that the Jews’ encounter with the Revelation and their religious
experience is a salvific path for them, it is also possible to acknowledge the fecundity
and importance that the richness they receive today from God has for us, and the value
that a better Jewish understanding of the Scriptures has for Christians. This stimulates
us to develop our own richness while accepting the lights that come from the current
Jewish experience, especially from that which arises out of its encounter with the
revealed Word of God. At the same time, we are motivated to search deeper into the
treasure of the biblical Revelation to exploit its inexhaustible richness together.
8. The Shoah revisited
Through this joint reading of the Bible, and taking Judaeo-Christian faith as a starting
point, we can find some theological key points to remove any possibility of having
another Shoah. Basically, I believe that rather than reconsidering the doctrine of God
W. KASPER, “An Address at the Israel Museum”, Jerusalem, 21/11/2001, items 2 and 6
Declaration of the GENERAL SYNOD gathered in Viena on October 28, 1998: “Time to Turn. The
Evangelical (Protestant) Churches in Austria and the Jews.”
53
54
21
himself, it is a matter of capturing the biblical message regarding the responsibility of
human beings as regards others, about the holy dignity of every human being, about the
crucial importance of loving all persons respectfully as a fundamental ethical demand.
Given the fact that what the Shoah involved was undue influence and an
incorrect use of human intelligence, we must emphasize the limits of human power, that
must be subject to the source of that power, that is, God and His plans. The Bible offers
us the image of a God who asks us: "Where is your brother?" (Gn 4:9). He is the God
who rejects the prayers of those who have their hands full of blood (cf. Is 1:15). In
short, he is the God who grants power to a human being so that that power may be used
for the benefit of a neighbor’s life. The Jews, due to their strong anti-idolatrical
tradition, and just because of all that they have suffered, tend to be very sensitive to any
risk of power abuse, to any false messianism, to any form of idolatry of people which
gives them limitless or uncontrolled powers.
Jews and Christians coincide in this basic reading of the Bible, and that is why
we feel called to respond to our only God by working together for life, justice and
freedom in our society, so as to pave the way for the messianic fullness we are yearning
for.
When we recall the Shoah, we still have this question in mind: “Why did not
God and his Messiah free their chosen people, with whom they had made an irrevocable
covenant?” It is impossible not to wonder when reading some promises of the Hebrew
Bible:
“He will not leave you, destroy you, or forget the covenant with your
fathers that He swore to them by oath, because the LORD, your God, is a
compassionate God ” (Dt 4: 31).
“The LORD will not forsake His people or abandon His heritage” (Sal 94:14).
“Indeed, the Protector of Israel does not slumber nor sleep” (Sal 121: 4-5).
The message of Exodus, namely, that God listens to the cry of his People
calling Moses as an instrument of liberation (Ex.3:9-10), tells us that in the Shoah it was
the human instruments, especially Christians, that did not accept the divine call and did
not fulfill their role of bringing God’s mercy and justice. In fact, the believing reflection
on what happened was clearly directed to thinking of a God who limits himself by
holding each human being heavily responsible for their brothers:
22
“We can speak of God after Auschwitz only as the one who calls us to a new
unity as beloved brothers.”55
If we consider that the Babylonian exile meant a crisis for the faith similar to
that of the Shoah, I believe it is not a random event that, precisely after the exile
disaster, there appeared the Jewish texts that attached the greatest importance to being
merciful towards our neighbors as an ethical requirement which God found particularly
pleasing (Dn 4:24; Tb 4: 7-11; 12: 9; Sir 3: 30-4,6; 29: 12-13).
The six million Jews who died at the hands of Nazi terror join their outcry
with that of the million people who die today due to inequality and exclusion. We think
that just as YHWH called Moses, so now He calls us to be instruments for liberation.
We, Jews and Christians, receivers of the Revelation, want to listen more carefully to
that outcry.
55
F. SHERMAN, “Speaking of God after Auschwitz”, in Worldview 17,9.
23