Dual-covenant theology: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:14, 6 July 2024

Christians consider Jesus to be the mediator of the New Covenant.^[1] Depicted is his famous Sermon on the Mount in which he commented on the Old Covenant.

Dual-covenant or two-covenant theology is a school of thought in Christian theology regarding the relevance of the Hebrew Bible, which Christians call the Old Testament.

Most Christians hold that the Old Testament has been superseded by the New Covenant, although the moral law continues to apply (cf. covenant theology);^[2]^[3]^[4] in contrast, a minority hold that the Mosaic covenant has been abrogated. Dual-covenant theology is unique in holding that the Mosaic covenant remains valid for Jews while the New Covenant only applies to non-Jews or gentiles.

Background

Judaism maintains that in the post-flood era there is a universally binding covenant between God and man in the form of the Seven Laws of Noah^[5]^[6]^[7] and that there is additionally a unique Sinaitic covenant that was made between God and the Hebrews at biblical Mount Sinai. However Judaism has not historically maintained that there is a separate covenant for gentiles wherein they should convert to Christianity. Indeed from the Maimonidean perspective, belief in the divinity of Jesus would be a breach of Noahide Law.^[8]

The 18th-century rabbinic thinker Yaakov Emden has even opined:

the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law—which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.^[9]

Later, in the 20th century, the unorthodox Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig, consequent to his flirtations with Christianity, advanced the idea in his work the Star of Redemption that "Christianity acknowledges the God of the Jews, not as God but as 'the Father of Jesus Christ.' Christianity itself cleaves to the 'Lord' because it knows that the Father can be reached only through him… We are all wholly agreed as to what Christ and his church mean to the world: no one can reach the Father save through him. No one can reach the Father! But the situation is quite different for one who does not have to reach the Father because he is already with him. And this is true of the people of Israel."^[10]

Daniel Goldhagen, former Associate Professor of Political Science at Harvard University, also suggested in his book A Moral Reckoning that the Roman Catholic Church should change its doctrine and the Biblical canon to excise statements he labels as antisemitic, to indicate that "The Jews' way to God is as legitimate as the Christian way".^[11]

Messianic Judaism

David H. Stern, a Messianic Jewish theologian, wrote that dual-covenant theology is said to originate with Maimonides. It was proffered in the 20th century by the Jewish philosopher Franz Rosenzweig, and was elaborated upon by such theologians as Reinhold Niebuhr and James Parkes.^{[citation needed]}

These founders believe that Jesus' message is not for Jews but for Gentiles and, that John 14:6 is to be understood thusly: "I am the way, the truth and the life; and no Gentile comes to the father except through me."^[12] Stern asserts that the problem of dual-covenant theology is that "replacing Yeshua's 'No one comes to the Father except through me' with 'No Gentile comes...' does unacceptable violence to the plain sense of the text and to the whole New Testament."^[13]

Apostolic Decree

The Apostolic Decree in the Book of Acts (15:19–29) has been commonly interpreted as a parallel to Noahide Law.^[14]

Although the Apostolic Decree is no longer observed by many Christian denominations today, it is still observed in full by the Greek Orthodox.^[15]

Opinion of Pope John Paul II

Traditional supersessionist theology, as exemplified in Pope Eugene IV's papal bull, which he published at the Council of Florence in 1441:

The Holy Roman Church... firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law... after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began;... after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.^[16]

John Paul II supported greater dialogue between Catholics and Jews, but did not explicitly support dual-covenant theology. On November 17, 1980, John Paul II delivered a speech to the Jews of Berlin in which he discussed his views of Catholic–Jewish relations. In it, John Paul II asserted that God's covenant with the Jewish people was never revoked. During the speech, John Paul II cited Nostra Aetate, claiming that Catholics "will endeavor to understand better all that in the Old Testament preserves a proper and perpetual value..., since this value has not been obliterated by the further interpretation of the New Testament, which on the contrary gave the Older its most complete meaning, so that the New one receives from the Old light and explanation."^[17]

Criticism

A major theme of Paul's Epistle to the Romans is said to be that, so far as salvation is concerned, Jews and Gentiles are equal before God (2:7–12; 3:9–31; 4:9–12; 5:12,17–19; 9:24; 10:12–13; 11:30–32). Romans 1:16, by stating that the Gospel is the same for Jew and Gentile, may present a serious problem for dual-covenant theology.^[18]

Galatians 5:3 is sometimes cited as a verse supporting dual-covenant theology. A problem with this argument, however, is the context of Galatians 5.^[19] Galatians 5:4^[20] in particular, says, "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Line this up with Galatians 2,^[21] Galatians 2:21^[22] in particular, which says "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." Scholars still debate the meaning of the Pauline phrase "Works of the Law" (see New Perspective on Paul and Federal Vision).

A similar challenge is presented by Galatians 2:15^[23] and 16,^[24] just after the Incident at Antioch, in which Paul says (speaking to Peter, a fellow Jew), "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified."

The same exclusive claims for the Christian message are also made by other writers. John 14:6^[25] states, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.'" Peter, speaking to fellow Jews about Jesus in Acts 4:12,^[26] says: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

The First Epistle of John states, "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also."^[27]

Catholic

Cardinal Avery Dulles was critical of dual-covenant theology, especially as understood in the USCCB's document Reflections on Covenant and Mission.^[28] In the article All in the Family: Christians, Jews and God, evidence has also been compiled from Scripture, the Church Fathers and official Church documents that the Catholic Church does not support dual covenant theology.^[29]

Though it is to be removed from the next edition (at order of the Vatican, as misrepresenting the editio typica) the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (2006) states:^[30]

The covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.

In June 2008 the bishops decided by a vote of 231–14 to remove this from the next printing of the Catechism, because it could be construed to mean that Jews have their own path to salvation and do not need Christ or the Church.^[31] In August 2009, the Vatican approved the change, and the revised text states (in conformity with the editio typica):^[32]

To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his Word, 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.'

Protestant

In 2006, Evangelical Protestant Jerry Falwell denied a report in The Jerusalem Post that he supported dual-covenant theology:^[33]

I have been on record all 54 years of my ministry as being opposed to dual covenant theology… I simply cannot alter my deeply held belief in the exclusivity of salvation through the Gospel of Christ for the sake of political or theological expediency. Like the Apostle Paul, I pray daily for the salvation of everyone, including the Jewish people.

References

^ such as Hebrews 8:6
^ "God's Law in Old and New Covenants". Orthodox Presbyterian Church. 2018. Retrieved 1 June 2018.
^ Dayton, Donald W. (1991). "Law and Gospel in the Wesleyan Tradition" (PDF). Grace Theological Journal. 12 (2): 233–243.
^ Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 100
^ BT Sanhedrin 57a
^ Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot M'lakhim 8:14
^ Encyclopedia Talmudit (Hebrew edition, Israel, 5741/1981, entry Ben Noah, end of article); note the variant reading of Maimonides and the references in the footnote
^ Maimonides, Peirush HaMishnha on Avodah Zarah 1.3, and his rulings in Hilchos Avoda Zarah 9:4, Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 11:7 & Hilchos Melachim 11:4
^ Appendix to "Seder 'Olam" pp. 32b–34b, Hamburg, 1752, in Gentile, Jewish Encyclopedia Archived October 7, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
^ Nahum N. Glatzer, 1961, Franz Rosenzweig: His Life and Thought, New York: Schocken Books, p. 341.
^ Riebling, Mark (January 27, 2003). "Jesus, Jews, and the Shoah". National Review. Archived from the original on March 18, 2005. Retrieved January 5, 2008.
^ David H. Stern, "Jewish New Testament Commentary", page 196, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1992.
^ "Archived copy" (PDF). baruchhashemsynagogue.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 October 2010. Retrieved 13 January 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
^ The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), Yale University Press (December 2, 1998), ISBN 0-300-13982-9, chapter V.
^ Karl Josef von Hefele's commentary on canon II of Gangra, CCEL Archived December 20, 2016, at the Wayback Machine notes: "We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed Ecumenical Synods, can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuse, like other laws."
^ "Primary texts from the history of the relationship…". Dialogika resources. CCJR. Archived from the original on 2014-07-14. Retrieved 2014-06-06.
^ Wojtyła, Charles (17 November 1980), "3", Meeting of John Paul II with the Representatives of the Jewish Community, Mainz (Google translation), Vatican, Rome, IT: Roman see
^ David H. Stern, 1992: "Jewish New Testament Commentary", page 329. Jewish New Testament Publications.
^ "Galatians", Bible (New American standard ed.), Scripture text, v, archived from the original on 2013-05-15, retrieved 2011-02-16
^ "Galatians", Bible, v:4, archived from the original on 2013-04-30, retrieved 2011-02-16
^ "Galatians", Bible (New American standard ed.), Scripture text, ii, archived from the original on 2013-05-16, retrieved 2011-02-16
^ "Galatians", Bible, ii:21, archived from the original on 2013-05-09, retrieved 2011-02-16
^ "Galatians", Bible, ii:15, archived from the original on 2013-04-20, retrieved 2011-02-16
^ "Galatians", Bible, ii:16, archived from the original on 2013-05-09, retrieved 2011-02-16
^ "John", Bible, xiv:6, archived from the original on 2013-05-02, retrieved 2011-02-16
^ "Acts", Bible (New American standard ed.), Scripture text, xii, archived from the original on 2013-05-16, retrieved 2011-04-07
^ "1 John", Bible (NIV ed.), Bible gateway, ii:22–23, archived from the original on 2016-03-25, retrieved 2010-02-28
^ Covenant and Mission, America magazine, Archived October 21, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
^ nForrest; Palm (July–August 2009). "All in the Family: Christians, Jews and God". Lay Witness. CUF. Archived from the original on 2009-09-05. Retrieved 2009-08-22.
^ United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006.
^ O'Brien. "Bishops Vote to Revise U.S. Catechism on Jewish Covenant with God". CNS. Archived from the original on 2015-03-24. Retrieved 2008-11-03.
^ "U.S. Bishops get Vatican 'Recognitio' for Change in Adult Catechism" (news release). USCCB. September 2009. Archived from the original on 2011-06-28. Retrieved 2009-12-04.
^ Hagee, Falwell deny endorsing 'dual covenant', Jerusalem Post, 2006-03-02, Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 2009-10-21.

External links

All in the Family: Christians, Jews and God Archived 2009-09-05 at the Wayback Machine
Jerusalem Post: Mar 2, 2006: Hagee, Falwell deny endorsing 'dual covenant'
Journal of Lutheran Ethics: Jewish-Christian Difficulties in Challenging Christian Zionism by Robert O. Smith: "...sometimes referred to as "dual covenant" theology. Any other understanding of the relationship, Christian Zionists argue, is a variation of supersessionism."
Ignatius Insight interview of Roy H. Schoeman Archived 2008-04-06 at the Wayback Machine: "This "dual covenant" theology seems to have been adopted to avoid the intrinsic, basic conflict at the heart of the Jewish-Catholic dialog. That is that either the Catholic Church is itself the continuation of Judaism after the coming of the Jewish Messiah – i.e., the Church is post-Messianic Judaism – or it is nothing at all."
What is dual-covenant theology Archived 2011-10-02 at the Wayback Machine: An article by 'Catholics for Israel' opposing dual-covenant theology and comparing it to supersessionism and to the Catholic position.
THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION: THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE
Jewish Tribune: 23 September 2009: A precarious moment in Catholic-Jewish relations

[1] such as Hebrews 8:6

[OPC2018-2] "God's Law in Old and New Covenants". Orthodox Presbyterian Church. 2018. Retrieved 1 June 2018.

[Dayton1991-3] Dayton, Donald W. (1991). "Law and Gospel in the Wesleyan Tradition" (PDF). Grace Theological Journal. 12 (2): 233–243.

[Aquinas-4] Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 100

[5] BT Sanhedrin 57a

[6] Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot M'lakhim 8:14

[7] Encyclopedia Talmudit (Hebrew edition, Israel, 5741/1981, entry Ben Noah, end of article); note the variant reading of Maimonides and the references in the footnote

[8] Maimonides, Peirush HaMishnha on Avodah Zarah 1.3, and his rulings in Hilchos Avoda Zarah 9:4, Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 11:7 & Hilchos Melachim 11:4

[9] Appendix to "Seder 'Olam" pp. 32b–34b, Hamburg, 1752, in Gentile, Jewish Encyclopedia Archived October 7, 2011, at the Wayback Machine

[10] Nahum N. Glatzer, 1961, Franz Rosenzweig: His Life and Thought, New York: Schocken Books, p. 341.

[Shoah-11] Riebling, Mark (January 27, 2003). "Jesus, Jews, and the Shoah". National Review. Archived from the original on March 18, 2005. Retrieved January 5, 2008.

[12] David H. Stern, "Jewish New Testament Commentary", page 196, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1992.

[13] "Archived copy" (PDF). baruchhashemsynagogue.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 October 2010. Retrieved 13 January 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

[14] The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), Yale University Press (December 2, 1998), ISBN 0-300-13982-9, chapter V.

[15] Karl Josef von Hefele's commentary on canon II of Gangra, CCEL Archived December 20, 2016, at the Wayback Machine notes: "We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed Ecumenical Synods, can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuse, like other laws."

[16] "Primary texts from the history of the relationship…". Dialogika resources. CCJR. Archived from the original on 2014-07-14. Retrieved 2014-06-06.

[17] Wojtyła, Charles (17 November 1980), "3", Meeting of John Paul II with the Representatives of the Jewish Community, Mainz (Google translation), Vatican, Rome, IT: Roman see

[18] David H. Stern, 1992: "Jewish New Testament Commentary", page 329. Jewish New Testament Publications.

[19] "Galatians", Bible (New American standard ed.), Scripture text, v, archived from the original on 2013-05-15, retrieved 2011-02-16

[20] "Galatians", Bible, v:4, archived from the original on 2013-04-30, retrieved 2011-02-16

[21] "Galatians", Bible (New American standard ed.), Scripture text, ii, archived from the original on 2013-05-16, retrieved 2011-02-16

[22] "Galatians", Bible, ii:21, archived from the original on 2013-05-09, retrieved 2011-02-16

[23] "Galatians", Bible, ii:15, archived from the original on 2013-04-20, retrieved 2011-02-16

[24] "Galatians", Bible, ii:16, archived from the original on 2013-05-09, retrieved 2011-02-16

[25] "John", Bible, xiv:6, archived from the original on 2013-05-02, retrieved 2011-02-16

[26] "Acts", Bible (New American standard ed.), Scripture text, xii, archived from the original on 2013-05-16, retrieved 2011-04-07

[27] "1 John", Bible (NIV ed.), Bible gateway, ii:22–23, archived from the original on 2016-03-25, retrieved 2010-02-28

[28] Covenant and Mission, America magazine, Archived October 21, 2012, at the Wayback Machine

[29] Forrest; Palm (July–August 2009). "All in the Family: Christians, Jews and God". Lay Witness. CUF. Archived from the original on 2009-09-05. Retrieved 2009-08-22.

[30] United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006.

[31] O'Brien. "Bishops Vote to Revise U.S. Catechism on Jewish Covenant with God". CNS. Archived from the original on 2015-03-24. Retrieved 2008-11-03.

[32] "U.S. Bishops get Vatican 'Recognitio' for Change in Adult Catechism" (news release). USCCB. September 2009. Archived from the original on 2011-06-28. Retrieved 2009-12-04.

[33] Hagee, Falwell deny endorsing 'dual covenant', Jerusalem Post, 2006-03-02, Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 2009-10-21.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Short description|School of thought in Christianity}}
 [[Image:Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg|thumb|275px|right|[[Christians]] consider [[Jesus]] to be the mediator of the [[New Covenant]].<ref>such as {{bibleverse||Hebrews|8:6}}</ref> Depicted is his famous [[Sermon on the Mount]] in which he [[Matthew 5#Antitheses|commented on the Old Covenant]].]]
 {{Christian Eschatology}}
-'''Dual-covenant''' or '''two-covenant''' theology is a school of thought in [[Christianity]] regarding the relevance of the [[Hebrew Bible]], which Christians call the [[Old Testament]].
+'''Dual-covenant''' or '''two-covenant theology''' is a school of thought in [[Christian theology]] regarding the relevance of the [[Hebrew Bible]], which Christians call the [[Old Testament]].
-Most [[Christian views on the Old Covenant|Christians]] hold that the Old Testament has been [[Supersessionism|superseded]] or [[Abrogation of Old Covenant laws|abrogated]] and replaced with the [[New Covenant]], which is the only one of the [[Covenant (biblical)|biblical covenants]] that remains valid today. Dual-covenant theology is unique in holding that the [[Old Covenant]] or the [[Law of Moses]] remains valid for [[Jews]] while the New Covenant only applies to non-Jews or [[gentiles]].
+Most [[Christian views on the Old Covenant|Christians]] hold that the Old Testament has been [[Supersessionism|superseded]] by the [[New Covenant]], although the [[Ten Commandments|moral law]] continues to apply (cf. [[covenant theology]]);<ref name="OPC2018">{{cite web|url=https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=165|title=God's Law in Old and New Covenants|year=2018|publisher=[[Orthodox Presbyterian Church]]|language=en|access-date=1 June 2018}}</ref><ref name="Dayton1991">{{cite journal |last1=Dayton |first1=Donald W. |title=Law and Gospel in the Wesleyan Tradition |journal=Grace Theological Journal |date=1991 |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=233–243 |url=https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gtj/12-2_233.pdf}}</ref><ref name="Aquinas">[http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2100.htm Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 100]</ref> in contrast, a minority hold that the [[Mosaic covenant]] has been [[Abrogation of Old Covenant laws|abrogated]]. Dual-covenant theology is unique in holding that the Mosaic covenant remains valid for [[Jews]] while the New Covenant only applies to non-Jews or [[gentiles]].
 ==Background==
-Judaism maintains that in the [[Genesis flood narrative|post-flood]] era there is a universally binding covenant between God and man in the form of the [[Seven Laws of Noah]]<ref>BT Sanhedrin 57a</ref><ref>Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot M'lakhim 8:14</ref><ref>Encyclopedia Talmudit (Hebrew edition, Israel, 5741/1981, entry ''Ben Noah'', end of article); note the variant reading of Maimonides and the references in the footnote</ref> and that there is additionally a unique [[Mosaic covenant|Sinaitic covenant]] that was made between God and the Hebrews at [[biblical Mount Sinai]]. However Judaism has not historically maintained that there is a separate covenant for gentiles wherein they should convert to Christianity. Indeed from the [[Maimonidean]] perspective, belief in the [[divinity of Jesus]] would be a [[Shituf|breach]] of Noahide Law.<ref>Maimonides, Peirush HaMishnha on Avodah Zarah 1.3, and his rulings in Hilchos Avoda Zarah 9:4, Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 11:7 and Hilchos Melachim 11:4</ref>
+Judaism maintains that in the [[Genesis flood narrative|post-flood]] era there is a universally binding covenant between God and man in the form of the [[Seven Laws of Noah]]<ref>BT Sanhedrin 57a</ref><ref>Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot M'lakhim 8:14</ref><ref>Encyclopedia Talmudit (Hebrew edition, Israel, 5741/1981, entry ''Ben Noah'', end of article); note the variant reading of Maimonides and the references in the footnote</ref> and that there is additionally a unique [[Mosaic covenant|Sinaitic covenant]] that was made between God and the Hebrews at [[biblical Mount Sinai]]. However Judaism has not historically maintained that there is a separate covenant for gentiles wherein they should convert to Christianity. Indeed from the [[Maimonidean]] perspective, belief in the [[divinity of Jesus]] would be a [[Shituf|breach]] of Noahide Law.<ref>Maimonides, Peirush HaMishnha on Avodah Zarah 1.3, and his rulings in Hilchos Avoda Zarah 9:4, Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 11:7 & Hilchos Melachim 11:4</ref>
 The 18th-century rabbinic thinker [[Yaakov Emden]] has even opined:
-:“...the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law — which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.”<ref>Appendix to "Seder 'Olam" pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752 as cited in the Jewish Encyclopedia under the entry [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=G#543) Gentile] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111007013434/http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=G#543) |date=October 7, 2011 }}</ref>
+{{blockquote|the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law—which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.<ref>Appendix to "Seder 'Olam" pp. 32b–34b, Hamburg, 1752, in [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=G#543) Gentile], Jewish Encyclopedia {{webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20111007013434/http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=G#543) |date=October 7, 2011}}</ref>}}
-Later on the 20th century unorthodox Jewish theologian [[Franz Rosenzweig]], consequent to his flirtations with Christianity, advanced the idea in his work the ''Star of Redemption'' that “Christianity acknowledges the God of the Jews, not as God but as “the Father of Jesus Christ.” Christianity itself cleaves to the “Lord” because it knows that the Father can be reached only through him....We are all wholly agreed as to what Christ and his church mean to the world: no one can reach the Father save through him. No one can reach the Father! But the situation is quite different for one who does not have to reach the Father because he is already with him. And this is true of the people of Israel.”<ref>Nahum N. Glatzer, Franz Rosenzweig: His Life and Thought  (New York: Schocken Books, 1961), p. 341.</ref>
+Later, in the 20th century, the unorthodox Jewish theologian [[Franz Rosenzweig]], consequent to his flirtations with Christianity, advanced the idea in his work the ''Star of Redemption'' that "Christianity acknowledges the God of the Jews, not as God but as 'the Father of Jesus Christ.' Christianity itself cleaves to the 'Lord' because it knows that the Father can be reached only through him…  We are all wholly agreed as to what Christ and his church mean to the world: no one can reach the Father save through him. No one can reach the Father! But the situation is quite different for one who does not have to reach the Father because he is already with him. And this is true of the people of Israel."<ref>Nahum N. Glatzer, 1961, Franz Rosenzweig: His Life and Thought, New York: Schocken Books, p. 341.</ref>
-[[Daniel Goldhagen]], former Associate Professor of Political Science at [[Harvard University]], also suggested in his book ''[[A Moral Reckoning]]'' that the [[Roman Catholic Church]] should change its doctrine and the [[Development of the Christian biblical canon|Biblical canon]] to excise statements he labels as [[antisemitic]], to indicate that "The Jews' way to God is as legitimate as the Christian way".<ref name="Shoah">{{Cite journal | last =Riebling | first =Mark | title =Jesus, Jews, and the Shoah | journal =[[National Review]] | volume = | issue = | pages = | date =January 27, 2003 | url =http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_1_55/ai_96403717 | doi = | id = | format = |accessdate=January 5, 2008 }}{{dead link|date=September 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>
+[[Daniel Goldhagen]], former Associate Professor of Political Science at [[Harvard University]], also suggested in his book ''[[A Moral Reckoning]]'' that the [[Roman Catholic Church]] should change its doctrine and the [[Development of the Christian biblical canon|Biblical canon]] to excise statements he labels as [[antisemitic]], to indicate that "The Jews' way to God is as legitimate as the Christian way".<ref name="Shoah">{{Cite journal | last =Riebling | first = Mark | title = Jesus, Jews, and the Shoah | journal = [[National Review]] | date = January 27, 2003 | url = http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_1_55/ai_96403717 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050318191028/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_1_55/ai_96403717 | url-status =dead | archive-date =March 18, 2005 |access-date= January 5, 2008 }}</ref>
 ==Messianic Judaism==
-{{see also|Messianic Judaism|Olive Tree Theology}}
+{{see also|Messianic Judaism}}
 [[David H. Stern]], a [[Messianic Judaism|Messianic Jewish theologian]], wrote that dual-covenant theology is said to originate with [[Maimonides]]. It was proffered in the 20th century by the Jewish philosopher [[Franz Rosenzweig]], and was elaborated upon by such theologians as [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] and [[James Parkes (clergyman)|James Parkes]].{{citation needed|date=March 2015}}
-These founders believe that Jesus' message is not for Jews but for Gentiles and, that {{bibleref2|John|14:6}} is to be understood thusly: "I am the way, the truth and the life; and no Gentile comes to the father except through me."<ref>David H. Stern, "Jewish New Testament Commentary", page 196, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1992.</ref> Stern asserts that the problem of dual-covenant theology is that "replacing Yeshua’s 'No one comes to the Father except through me' with 'No Gentile comes...' does unacceptable violence to the plain sense of the text and to the whole New Testament."<ref>http://baruchhashemsynagogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/H_Lesson_-_Restoring_the_Jewishness_of_the_Gospel.pdf{{dead link|date=December 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>
+These founders believe that Jesus' message is not for Jews but for Gentiles and, that {{bibleref2|John|14:6}} is to be understood thusly: "I am the way, the truth and the life; and no Gentile comes to the father except through me."<ref>David H. Stern, "Jewish New Testament Commentary", page 196, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1992.</ref> Stern asserts that the problem of dual-covenant theology is that "replacing Yeshua's 'No one comes to the Father except through me' with 'No Gentile comes...' does unacceptable violence to the plain sense of the text and to the whole New Testament."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://baruchhashemsynagogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/H_Lesson_-_Restoring_the_Jewishness_of_the_Gospel.pdf |title=Archived copy |website=baruchhashemsynagogue.org |access-date=13 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101028113921/http://baruchhashemsynagogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/H_Lesson_-_Restoring_the_Jewishness_of_the_Gospel.pdf |archive-date=28 October 2010 |url-status=dead}}</ref>
 ==Apostolic Decree==
-[[File:Saint James the Just.jpg|thumb|right|200px|[[James the Just]], whose judgment was adopted in the [[Apostolic Decree]] of {{bibleverse||Acts|15:19-29}}, c. 50 AD: "we should write to them [Gentiles] to abstain only from [[idolatry|things polluted by idols]] and from [[fornication]] and from whatever has been strangled and from [[Taboo food and drink#Blood|blood]]..." ([[NRSV]])]]
+[[File:Saint James the Just.jpg|thumb|right|200px|[[James the Just]], whose judgment was adopted in the [[Apostolic Decree]] of {{bibleverse||Acts|15:19-29}}, c. 50 AD: "we should write to them [Gentiles] to abstain only from [[idolatry|things polluted by idols]] and from [[fornication]] and from whatever has been strangled and from [[Taboo food and drink#Blood|blood]]…" ([[NRSV]])]]
 {{see also|Jewish Christianity}}
-The [[Apostolic Decree]] in the [[Book of Acts]] ({{bibleverse-nb||Acts|15:19-29}}) has been commonly interpreted as a parallel to [[Noahide Law]].<ref>''The Acts of the Apostles (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries)'', Yale University Press (December 2, 1998), {{ISBN|0-300-13982-9}}, chapter V</ref>
+The [[Council of Jerusalem|Apostolic Decree]] in the [[Book of Acts]] ({{bibleverse-nb||Acts|15:19-29}}) has been commonly interpreted as a parallel to [[Noahide Law]].<ref>''The Acts of the Apostles'' (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), Yale University Press (December 2, 1998), {{ISBN|0-300-13982-9}}, chapter V.</ref>
-Although the Apostolic Decree is no longer observed by many [[Christian denominations]] today, it is still observed in full by the [[Greek Orthodox]].<ref>[[Karl Josef von Hefele]]'s [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.v.iv.ii.html commentary on canon II of Gangra] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220220146/http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.v.iv.ii.html |date=December 20, 2016 }} notes: "We further see that, at the time of the Synod of [[Gangra]], the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. [[Balsamon]] also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third [[Canons of the Apostles|Apostolic Canon]], expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by [[Augustine of Hippo|St. Augustine]] in his work [[Contra Faustum]], where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, [[Pope Gregory III|Pope Gregory the Third]] (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed [[Ecumenical council|Ecumenical Synods]], can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuse, like other laws."</ref>
+Although the Apostolic Decree is no longer observed by many [[Christian denominations]] today, it is still observed in full by the [[Greek Orthodox]].<ref>[[Karl Josef von Hefele]]'s [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.v.iv.ii.html commentary on canon II of Gangra], CCEL {{webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20161220220146/http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.v.iv.ii.html |date=December 20, 2016 }} notes: "We further see that, at the time of the Synod of [[Gangra]], the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. [[Balsamon]] also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third [[Canons of the Apostles|Apostolic Canon]], expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by [[Augustine of Hippo|St. Augustine]] in his work [[Contra Faustum]], where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, [[Pope Gregory III|Pope Gregory the Third]] (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed [[Ecumenical council |Ecumenical Synods]], can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuse, like other laws."</ref>
 ==Opinion of Pope John Paul II==
 {{See also|Pope John Paul II and Judaism}}
-Traditional supersessionist theology, as exemplified in [[Pope Eugene IV]]'s papal bull, which he published at the [[Council of Florence]] in 1441:
+Traditional [[supersessionism|supersessionist]] theology, as exemplified in [[Pope Eugene IV]]'s papal bull, which he published at the [[Council of Florence]] in 1441:
-{{quote|The Holy Roman Church . . . firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law ... after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; ... after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/669-eugene4 |title=Archived copy |access-date=2014-06-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714194944/http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/669-eugene4 |archive-date=2014-07-14 |url-status=dead }}</ref>}}
+{{blockquote|The Holy Roman Church... firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law... after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began;... after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.<ref>{{Cite web |url= http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/669-eugene4 | publisher = CCJR |title= Primary texts from the history of the relationship… | work = Dialogika resources |access-date= 2014-06-06 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140714194944/http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/669-eugene4 |archive-date=2014-07-14 |url-status=dead}}</ref>}}
-[[John Paul II]] supported greater dialogue between Catholics and Jews, but did not explicitly support [[dual-covenant theology]]. On November 17, 1980, John Paul II delivered a speech to the Jews of [[Berlin]] in which he discussed his views of [[Relations between Catholicism and Judaism|Catholic-Jewish relations]]. In it, John Paul II asserted that God's  [[Mosaic covenant|covenant]] with the Jewish people was never revoked. During the speech, John Paul II cited ''[[Nostra Aetate]]'', claiming that Catholics "will endeavor to understand better all that in the Old Testament preserves a proper and perpetual value ..., since this value has not been obliterated by the further interpretation of the New Testament, which on the contrary gave the Older its most complete meaning, so that the New one receives from the Old light and explanation ."<ref>Meeting of John Paul II with the Representatives of the Jewish Community, Mainz, Section 3, Google translation, 17 November 1980, https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1980/november/documents/hf_jp_ii_spe_19801117_ebrei-magonza.html</ref>
+[[John Paul II]] supported greater dialogue between Catholics and Jews, but did not explicitly support dual-covenant theology. On November 17, 1980, John Paul II delivered a speech to the Jews of [[Berlin]] in which he discussed his views of [[Relations between Catholicism and Judaism|Catholic–Jewish relations]]. In it, John Paul II asserted that God's [[Mosaic covenant|covenant]] with the Jewish people was never revoked. During the speech, John Paul II cited ''[[Nostra Aetate]]'', claiming that Catholics "will endeavor to understand better all that in the Old Testament preserves a proper and perpetual value..., since this value has not been obliterated by the further interpretation of the New Testament, which on the contrary gave the Older its most complete meaning, so that the New one receives from the Old light and explanation."<ref>{{Citation | last = Wojtyła | first = Charles | title = Meeting of John Paul II with the Representatives of the Jewish Community, Mainz | section = 3 | type = Google translation | date = 17 November 1980 | publisher = Roman see | place = Vatican, Rome, IT | url = https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1980/november/documents/hf_jp_ii_spe_19801117_ebrei-magonza.html}}</ref>
 ==Criticism==
 {{see also|Paul the Apostle and Judaism}}
 {{religious text primary|section|date=March 2015}}
-A major theme of Paul's [[Epistle to the Romans]] is said to be that, so far as [[salvation]] is concerned, Jews and Gentiles are equal before God ([http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/passage.aspx?q=Romans+2:7-12 2:7-12];&nbsp; [http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/passage.aspx?q=Romans+3:9-31 3:9-31];&nbsp; [http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/passage.aspx?q=Romans+4:9-12 4:9-12];&nbsp; [http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/passage.aspx?q=Romans+5:12;Romans+5:17-19 5:12,17-19];&nbsp; [http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/9-24.html 9:24];&nbsp; [http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/passage.aspx?q=Romans+10:12-13 10:12-13];&nbsp; [http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/passage.aspx?q=Romans+11:30-32 11:30-32]). Romans [http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/1-16.html 1:16], by stating that the [[Gospel]] is the same for Jew and Gentile, may present a serious problem for dual-covenant theology.<ref>David H. Stern: "Jewish New Testament Commentary", page 329. Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1992.</ref>
+A major theme of Paul's [[Epistle to the Romans]] is said to be that, so far as [[salvation]] is concerned, Jews and Gentiles are equal before God ([http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/passage.aspx?q=Romans+2:7-12 2:7–12]; [http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/passage.aspx?q=Romans+3:9-31 3:9–31]; [http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/passage.aspx?q=Romans+4:9-12 4:9–12]; [http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/passage.aspx?q=Romans+5:12;Romans+5:17-19 5:12,17–19]; [http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/9-24.html 9:24]; [http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/passage.aspx?q=Romans+10:12-13 10:12–13]; [http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/passage.aspx?q=Romans+11:30-32 11:30–32]). Romans [http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/1-16.html 1:16], by stating that the [[Gospel]] is the same for Jew and Gentile, may present a serious problem for dual-covenant theology.<ref>David H. Stern, 1992: "Jewish New Testament Commentary", page 329. Jewish New Testament Publications.</ref>
-{{bibleverse||Galatians|5:3}} is sometimes cited as a verse supporting dual-covenant theology. A problem with this argument, however, is the context of Galatians 5.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nasb.scripturetext.com/galatians/5.htm |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2011-02-16 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515233549/http://nasb.scripturetext.com/galatians/5.htm |archivedate=2013-05-15 }}</ref> Galatians 5:4<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bible.cc/galatians/5-4.htm |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2011-02-16 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130430024205/http://bible.cc/galatians/5-4.htm |archivedate=2013-04-30 }}</ref> in particular, says, "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Line this up with Galatians 2,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nasb.scripturetext.com/galatians/2.htm |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2011-02-16 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130516171504/http://nasb.scripturetext.com/galatians/2.htm |archivedate=2013-05-16 }}</ref> Galatians 2:21<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bible.cc/galatians/2-21.htm |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2011-02-16 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130509073655/http://bible.cc/galatians/2-21.htm |archivedate=2013-05-09 }}</ref> in particular, which says “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” Scholars still debate the meaning of the Pauline phrase "[[New Perspective on Paul#Works of the Law|Works of the Law]]" (see [[New Perspective on Paul]] and [[Federal Vision]]).
+{{bibleverse ||Galatians|5:3}} is sometimes cited as a verse supporting dual-covenant theology. A problem with this argument, however, is the context of Galatians 5.<ref>{{citation |url= http://nasb.scripturetext.com/galatians/5.htm |title= Galatians | edition = New American standard | publisher = Scripture text | work = Bible | at = v |access-date= 2011-02-16 |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130515233549/http://nasb.scripturetext.com/galatians/5.htm |archive-date= 2013-05-15 }}</ref> Galatians 5:4<ref>{{citation |url= http://bible.cc/galatians/5-4.htm |title= Galatians | at = v:4 | work = Bible |access-date= 2011-02-16 |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130430024205/http://bible.cc/galatians/5-4.htm |archive-date= 2013-04-30}}</ref> in particular, says, "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Line this up with Galatians 2,<ref>{{citation |url= http://nasb.scripturetext.com/galatians/2.htm |title= Galatians |edition=New American standard |publisher=Scripture text |work=Bible | at =ii |access-date=2011-02-16 |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130516171504/http://nasb.scripturetext.com/galatians/2.htm |archive-date= 2013-05-16}}</ref> Galatians 2:21<ref>{{citation |url=http://bible.cc/galatians/2-21.htm |title= Galatians | at =ii:21 |work=Bible |access-date=2011-02-16 |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130509073655/http://bible.cc/galatians/2-21.htm |archive-date=2013-05-09 }}</ref> in particular, which says "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." Scholars still debate the meaning of the Pauline phrase "[[New Perspective on Paul#Works of the Law|Works of the Law]]" (see [[New Perspective on Paul]] and [[Federal Vision]]).
-A similar challenge is presented by Galatians 2:15<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bible.cc/galatians/2-15.htm |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2011-02-16 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130420180101/http://bible.cc/galatians/2-15.htm |archivedate=2013-04-20 }}</ref> and 16,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bible.cc/galatians/2-16.htm |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2011-02-16 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130509051639/http://bible.cc/galatians/2-16.htm |archivedate=2013-05-09 }}</ref> just after the [[Incident at Antioch]], in which Paul says (speaking to Peter, a fellow Jew), “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified."
+A similar challenge is presented by Galatians 2:15<ref>{{citation |url= http://bible.cc/galatians/2-15.htm |title= Galatians | at = ii:15 | work = Bible |access-date=2011-02-16 |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130420180101/http://bible.cc/galatians/2-15.htm |archive-date=2013-04-20 }}</ref> and 16,<ref>{{citation |url= http://bible.cc/galatians/2-16.htm |title= Galatians | at = ii:16 | work = Bible |access-date= 2011-02-16 |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130509051639/http://bible.cc/galatians/2-16.htm |archive-date=2013-05-09}}</ref> just after the [[Incident at Antioch]], in which Paul says (speaking to Peter, a fellow Jew), "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified."
-The same exclusive claims for the Christian message are also made by other writers.  John 14:6<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bible.cc/john/14-6.htm |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2011-02-16 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130502145038/http://bible.cc/john/14-6.htm |archivedate=2013-05-02 }}</ref> states, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.'"  Peter, speaking to fellow Jews about Jesus in Acts 4:12,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nasb.scripturetext.com/acts/12.htm |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2011-04-07 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130516023929/http://nasb.scripturetext.com/acts/12.htm |archivedate=2013-05-16 }}</ref> says:  "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."
+The same exclusive claims for the Christian message are also made by other writers.  John 14:6<ref>{{citation |url= http://bible.cc/john/14-6.htm |title= John | work = Bible | at = xiv:6 |access-date= 2011-02-16 |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130502145038/http://bible.cc/john/14-6.htm |archive-date=2013-05-02}}</ref> states, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.{{'"}}  Peter, speaking to fellow Jews about Jesus in Acts 4:12,<ref>{{citation |url= http://nasb.scripturetext.com/acts/12.htm |title= Acts |access-date= 2011-04-07 | edition = New American standard | at = xii | publisher = Scripture text | work = Bible |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130516023929/http://nasb.scripturetext.com/acts/12.htm |archive-date= 2013-05-16}}</ref> says:  "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."
-The First Epistle of John states, "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the [[antichrist]]—he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also."<ref>1 John 2:22-23, NIV, {{cite web|url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search%3D1+John+2%3A22-23%26version%3DNIV |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2010-02-28 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160325005928/https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202%3A22-23&version=NIV |archivedate=2016-03-25 }}</ref> This does not differentiate between Jews or Gentiles, giving an argument of [[evidence of absence]].
+The First Epistle of John states, "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the [[antichrist]]—he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also."<ref>{{citation | work = Bible | at = ii:22–23 | edition = NIV | publisher = Bible gateway |url= http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search%3D1+John+2%3A22-23%26version%3DNIV |title= 1 John |access-date= 2010-02-28 |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160325005928/https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202%3A22-23&version=NIV |archive-date= 2016-03-25}}</ref>
 ===Catholic===
-Cardinal [[Avery Dulles]] was critical of dual-covenant theology, especially as understood in the USCCB's document ''Reflections on Covenant and Mission''.<ref>[http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2550 Covenant and Mission] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121021145341/http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2550 |date=October 21, 2012 }}</ref>  In the article ''All in the Family:  Christians, Jews and God'', evidence has also been compiled from Scripture, the [[Church Fathers]] and official Church documents that the [[Catholic Church]] does not support dual covenant theology.<ref>Forrest and Palm; ''All in the Family:  Christians, Jews and God''; ''Lay Witness'', July/Aug 2009; {{cite web|url=http://www.cuf.org/Laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2009-08-22 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090905055248/http://www.cuf.org/Laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp |archivedate=2009-09-05 }}</ref>
+Cardinal [[Avery Dulles]] was critical of dual-covenant theology, especially as understood in the USCCB's document ''Reflections on Covenant and Mission''.<ref>[http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2550 Covenant and Mission], America magazine, {{webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20121021145341/http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2550 |date= October 21, 2012}}</ref>  In the article ''All in the Family:  Christians, Jews and God'', evidence has also been compiled from Scripture, the [[Church Fathers]] and official Church documents that the [[Catholic Church]] does not support dual covenant theology.<ref>{{cite web | publisher = CUF |url= http://www.cuf.org/Laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp |title=All in the Family: Christians, Jews and God |access-date=2009-08-22 |last1=nForrest |last2=Palm |work=Lay Witness |date=July–August 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090905055248/http://www.cuf.org/Laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp |archive-date=2009-09-05}}</ref>
-Though it is to be removed from the next edition (at order of the [[Holy See|Vatican]], as misrepresenting the ''editio typica'') the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (2006) states:<ref>''United States Catholic Catechism for Adults'', (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006).</ref>
+Though it is to be removed from the next edition (at order of the [[Holy See|Vatican]], as misrepresenting the ''editio typica'') the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (2006) states:<ref>''United States Catholic Catechism for Adults'', Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006.</ref>
+{{blockquote|The covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.}}
+In June 2008 the bishops decided by a vote of 231–14 to remove this from the next printing of the Catechism, because it could be construed to mean that Jews have their own path to [[salvation]] and do not need Christ or the Church.<ref>{{cite web | last = O'Brien | publisher = CNS |url= http://www.usccb.org/stories/bishops_vote_catec.shtml |title= Bishops Vote to Revise U.S. Catechism on Jewish Covenant with God |access-date=2008-11-03 |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150324184530/http://www.usccb.org/stories/bishops_vote_catec.shtml |archive-date= 2015-03-24}}</ref> In August 2009, the Vatican approved the change, and the revised text states (in conformity with the ''editio typica''):<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-174.shtml |title= U.S. Bishops get Vatican 'Recognitio' for Change in Adult Catechism |access-date=2009-12-04 |url-status=live | publisher = USCCB | type = news release |date=September 2009 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110628111612/http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-174.shtml |archive-date= 2011-06-28}}</ref>
-{{quote|The covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.}}
+{{blockquote|To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his Word, 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.'}}
+===Protestant===
-In June 2008 the bishops decided by a vote of 231-14 to remove this from the next printing of the Catechism, because it could be construed to mean that Jews have their own path to [[salvation]] and do not need Christ or the Church.<ref>O'Brien: ''Bishops Vote to Revise U.S. Catechism on Jewish Covenant with God''; CNS, {{cite web|url=http://www.usccb.org/stories/bishops_vote_catec.shtml |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2008-11-03 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150324184530/http://www.usccb.org/stories/bishops_vote_catec.shtml |archivedate=2015-03-24 }}</ref> In August 2009, the Vatican approved the change, and the revised text states (in conformity with the ''editio typica''):<ref>''U.S. Bishops get Vatican ‘Recognitio’ for Change in Adult Catechism''; USCCB News Release, {{cite web|url=http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-174.shtml |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2009-12-04 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110628111612/http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-174.shtml |archivedate=2011-06-28 }}</ref>
+In 2006, Evangelical Protestant [[Jerry Falwell]] denied a report in ''[[The Jerusalem Post]]'' that he supported dual-covenant theology:<ref>[http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Hagee-Falwell-deny-endorsing-dual-covenant Hagee, Falwell deny endorsing 'dual covenant'], ''Jerusalem Post'', 2006-03-02, {{webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160304044740/http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Hagee-Falwell-deny-endorsing-dual-covenant |date=March 4, 2016}}. Retrieved 2009-10-21.</ref>
+{{blockquote|I have been on record all 54 years of my ministry as being opposed to dual covenant theology…  I simply cannot alter my deeply held belief in the exclusivity of salvation through the Gospel of Christ for the sake of political or theological expediency. Like the Apostle Paul, I pray daily for the salvation of everyone, including the Jewish people.}}
-{{quote|To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his Word, 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.'}}
-===Protestant===
-In 2006, Evangelical Protestant [[Jerry Falwell]] denied a report in the ''[[Jerusalem Post]]'' that he supported dual-covenant theology:<ref>''Jerusalem Post'', 2006-03-02, [http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Hagee-Falwell-deny-endorsing-dual-covenant Hagee, Falwell deny endorsing 'dual covenant'] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304044740/http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Hagee-Falwell-deny-endorsing-dual-covenant |date=March 4, 2016 }}. Retrieved 2009-10-21.</ref>
-{{quote|I have been on record all 54 years of my ministry as being opposed to dual covenant theology... I simply cannot alter my deeply held belief in the exclusivity of salvation through the Gospel of Christ for the sake of political or theological expediency. Like the Apostle Paul, I pray daily for the salvation of everyone, including the Jewish people.}}
 ==See also==
@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 * ''[[Solus Christus]]''
 * [[Supersessionism]]
+* [[Two House theology]]
 == References ==
@@ Line 86: / Line 87: @@
 ==External links==
-*[http://www.cuf.org/Laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp All in the Family:  Christians, Jews and God]
+*[http://www.cuf.org/Laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp All in the Family:  Christians, Jews and God] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090905055248/http://www.cuf.org/Laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp |date=2009-09-05 }}
-*[https://archive.is/20120709160133/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1139395523403 Jerusalem Post: Mar 2, 2006: Hagee, Falwell deny endorsing 'dual covenant']
+*[https://archive.today/20120709160133/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1139395523403 Jerusalem Post: Mar 2, 2006: Hagee, Falwell deny endorsing 'dual covenant']
-*[https://web.archive.org/web/20070815005902/http://www.elca.org/jle/article.asp?k=718 Journal of Lutheran Ethics: Jewish-Christian Difficulties in Challenging Christian Zionism by Robert O. Smith]: "...sometimes referred to as “dual covenant” theology. Any other understanding of the relationship, [[Christian Zionists]] argue, is a variation of [[supersessionism]]."
+*[https://web.archive.org/web/20070815005902/http://www.elca.org/jle/article.asp?k=718 Journal of Lutheran Ethics: Jewish-Christian Difficulties in Challenging Christian Zionism by Robert O. Smith]: "...sometimes referred to as "dual covenant" theology. Any other understanding of the relationship, [[Christian Zionists]] argue, is a variation of [[supersessionism]]."
-*[http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features/schoemanintvw1_july04.asp Ignatius Insight interview of Roy H. Schoeman]: "This "dual covenant" theology seems to have been adopted to avoid the intrinsic, basic conflict at the heart of the [[Judaism and Christianity|Jewish-Catholic dialog]]. That is that either the Catholic Church is itself the continuation of Judaism after the coming of the Jewish Messiah – i.e., the Church is post-Messianic Judaism – or it is nothing at all."
+*[http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features/schoemanintvw1_july04.asp Ignatius Insight interview of Roy H. Schoeman] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080406080709/http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features/schoemanintvw1_july04.asp |date=2008-04-06 }}: "This "dual covenant" theology seems to have been adopted to avoid the intrinsic, basic conflict at the heart of the [[Judaism and Christianity|Jewish-Catholic dialog]]. That is that either the Catholic Church is itself the continuation of Judaism after the coming of the Jewish Messiah – i.e., the Church is post-Messianic Judaism – or it is nothing at all."
-* [http://www.israelcatholic.com/content/view/103/25/ What is dual-covenant theology]: An article by 'Catholics for Israel' opposing dual-covenant theology and comparing it to supersessionism and to the Catholic position.
+* [http://www.israelcatholic.com/content/view/103/25/ What is dual-covenant theology] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111002113545/http://www.israelcatholic.com/content/view/103/25/ |date=2011-10-02 }}: An article by 'Catholics for Israel' opposing dual-covenant theology and comparing it to supersessionism and to the Catholic position.
 *[https://web.archive.org/web/20090918155252/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION: THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE]
 *[https://web.archive.org/web/20091004183630/http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/200909232120/A-precarious-moment-in-Catholic-Jewish-relations.html Jewish Tribune: 23 September 2009: A precarious moment in Catholic-Jewish relations]