Ben Douglass has written the following review of Roy Schoeman's book, Salvation is From the Jews:
Thoughts on Salvation is From the Jews
David Palm and Michael Forrest offer their reactions to Ben's review, below:
David Palm:
My reaction on reading this review is that it is balanced and fair. Some of the same passages which Douglass praises as profound and helpful stood out to me as well. And it is nice to see Douglass catching certain nuances of Schoeman's presentation as when, for example, he notes that, “Schoeman indulges in a terminological novum, but not a substantial novum, when he says that the Old Covenant brings the New Covenant to fruition by this mass conversion.” This is a nice turn of phrase. And as I argued in my own defense of Schoeman, the key word is "fruition"--referring to future graces poured out on the Jews--and not "fulfillment", thus positing a kind of validity of the Old Covenant apart from the New as a more hostile critic would have it.
But Schoeman's book is not above criticism, as he will readily acknowledge. There are areas in which one may legitimately question the wording of the book. For example, like Douglass, I could not agree with Schoeman that the view of supersessionism that he laid out--namely, that the Church being constituted as the New Israel meant that there was no special place whatsoever for ethnic Jews in God's plans--actually dominated Christian theology for two thousand years. With Douglass, I thought that at the very least the Catholic understanding that there will be a future special conversion of the Jews to Christ runs counter to this. That there has been a marked shift in emphasis in official and unofficial Catholic statements is clear, but that's not quite the way it is phrased in the book.
I agree with Douglass, too, that the handling of certain prophesies, such as that of the "abomination of desolation" is potentially problematic. But for the record, let it be noted that the first person to point out an incongruity in Mr. Schoeman's interpretation of the "abomination of desolation" was not Ben Douglass, nor even Bob Sungenis, but Michael Forrest in "Robert Sungenis and the Jews":
That said, in fairness, again, I can at least see where one may legitimately ask for clarification from Schoeman on some of these points. One could conceivably even argue that certain things may eventually need to be modified. I have no issues with such possibilities and consider such discussions, when handled fairly and charitably, perfectly legitimate.
For instance, the Scriptural prophecy about the cessation of the sacrifice does seem to imply that God will be displeased about this development. One may question whether the Jewish Temple could ever potentially fulfill this prophecy because we know that sacrifices now offered in the Jewish Temple could never be pleasing and efficacious in God’s eyes. There is only one such sacrifice: that of Jesus Christ which is re-presented at each and every Mass (which Schoeman would not dispute) (http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/Converts_and_Conclusion.html).
I would probably not agree with the force of certain of Douglass' criticisms concerning individual prophetic interpretations, although I think that this is the weakest part of the book. But criticisms here should be tempered by Schoeman's explicit acknowledgement, in at least three places, that his views are speculative. And I don't think Ben gave Schoeman quite enough credit for this "disclaimer".
That being said, in general Douglass has offered a fine critique of a fine book.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Michael Forrest:
I found Ben Douglass’s review of Salvation is From the Jews to be thoughtful, balanced and reasonable. I believe it is a positive contribution to an important discussion that is taking place within the Church at this time in history.
As Pope Benedict XVI indicated in the preface to his book, Many Religions, One Covenant, the topic of the relationships between God, Israel and the Church is one that calls for further exploration and discussion. The Church has not yet spoken with absolute clarity and finality about the full nature of these relationships. As such, and as is so often the case in such situations, there are two extremes of which we should be careful.
As we have witnessed in the aftermath of Vatican II, there is a danger that those with certain personal leanings or agendas may take undue liberties in their quest for compassion and openness by effectively usurping the role of the Magisterium: prematurely declaring and forcing new quasi-dogmas and quasi-doctrines upon the rest of the Catholic faithful and condemning all of those who resist or question them as mean-spirited, reactionary dinosaurs. In the context of this discussion, a prime candidate for this first error would seem to be the promulgation of the “dual covenant” theory that proposes two separate pathways to God, one for Jews, one for Christians.
Conversely, there is an opposing, reactionary extreme that ought to be resisted as well, an extreme perhaps rooted in fear. While one may easily sympathize with the desire for absolute stability in light of some of the upheaval Catholics have endured over the past 40 years, the proper response still cannot be to effectively usurp the role of the Magisterium: prematurely stifling legitimate discussion and exploration by recklessly branding others with whom one disagrees as nefarious heretics and the like.
The Magisterium does not operate as the Urim and Thummim of old, in something of a vacuum, with truths being revealed suddenly, fully formed. The truth is generally arrived at through a complex process involving a thorough examination and sifting of many sources of information under the guidance of the Holy Spirit: from the Scriptures, to the Councils of the Church to the sensus fidelium…the sense of the faithful.
I believe that Roy Schoeman has helped to further that legitimate, important discussion. I also believe that Ben Douglass has added his own positive contribution now and I welcome it.
I find myself in essential agreement with most of Ben’s points, both positive and negative (including the issue involving the Temple…as David Palm noted, I first mentioned this back in September 2006…and the symmetry involving the identity of the Antichrist). However, I do agree with David Palm that insufficient attention was perhaps paid to the disclaimers given by Schoeman as to the speculative nature of many observations. It is also important to remember that this book was written with an eye toward helping other Jews come to Christ.
My most substantial disagreement (if it can be called that) is not directly in regard to the book really. I tend to disagree with Ben’s comparisons between the Muslim Q’ran/Hadith and the Jewish Talmud/Zohar.
I am unaware of any place wherein the Talmud or Zohar teach Jews to forcefully convert non-Jews or use violence against them if they will not convert. Even in those places where the Talmud appears to have ugly things to say about Christianity, I see no evidence that modern Rabbis appeal to and teach these passages to their fellow Jews in order to further propagate such ideas. To the contrary, I have seen evidence that, if anything, such passages are downplayed or completely ignored by today’s Jews. This does not seem to be the case with Islam, in my opinion. There seems to be no such dearth of modern Muslims who very much teach and hold to the traditional, more violent interpretation of the Q’ran and Hadith (to be clear, I do not intend to suggest this observation applies to all or even most Muslims). And we have seen the practical results in the papers and television. We need not try to divine their motives or discern conspiracies. They say it openly. But again, this is a matter of opinion and I fully respect Ben’s right to a differing one and certainly do not at all consider it evidence of bad will. While I believe I am fairly well informed, I do not claim to be an expert on these issues.
In the end, let me reiterate: I find Ben’s review to be a welcome contribution to the discussion on the relationship between God, Israel and the Church.
