The Good Friday Prayer by Howard Rubenstein (San Diego: Granite Hills Press, 2012); ISBN-10: 1929468237; 520 pages; $24:95; Rating 4*
By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California — When one considers all the new books that have appeared in the news about Jesus, Howard Rubinstein’s book, The Good Friday Prayer is one of the more interesting and provocative expositions I have encountered in recent months.
The book’s cover presents the image of Jesus—as portrayed by the famous artist Marc Chagall. In this famous picture, Jesus is portrayed as a Jew being crucified by his followers’ descendants who have made the Jew a vagabond and victim of history.
As a child of a survivor, I have always found this particular image of Jesus—the Jew—suffering on the cross to be a stirring image, and I have on many occasions shown this picture to many of my Christian friends.
This picture encapsulates much of you can expect to find in The Good Friday Prayer. Most Jews and Christians (of probably all persuasions) are unfamiliar with this particular part of the old Catholic liturgy:
“Let us pray for the perfidious Jews: That the God of our Lord has taken away the veil from their hearts: that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us pray: Almighty and everlasting God, you do not refuse your mercy even to the perfidious Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.”
Rubenstein’s opening salvo is wonderfully stated:
- Jewish groups, and Catholics concerned with interfaith relations, had complained about the 1962 prayer last year when Pope Benedict XVI gave Catholics more freedom to use the Latin Mass. Last month the Vatican issued a revision, which critics say fails to reflect more recent church teaching that the Jewish covenant with God is eternal.
- It says, “Let us pray for the Jews. May the Lord our God enlighten their hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men. . . . Almighty and everlasting God, you who want all men to be saved and to reach the awareness of the truth, graciously grant that, with the fullness of peoples entering into your church, all Israel may be saved.”
- Some have tried to justify the word ‘perfidious’ on the ground that in Latin, the word means nonbelieving as well as treacherous. This is a disingenuous argument. Although in Latin perfidious may mean nonbelieving, its primary meaning in English is treacherous. Furthermore, if the [C]hurch has all along meant nonbelieving, why has it invariably chosen to translate the word as perfidious? Why is the prayer said on Good Friday, the day of Jesus of Nazareth’s crucifixion?
Rubenstein’s objections are not altogether new. Many Jewish leaders over the years have complained about the Catholic Church’s attempt to soften or even sugarcoat the prayer so as to not offend the sensibilities of the Jewish people. Rubenstein then provides the new version of the Good Friday Prayer that appeared after Vatican II:
- Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen
Obviously, this version of the prayer represents a significant improvement over the original Good Friday Prayer, but the debate did not end with Vatican II.
In February of 2008, Pope Benedict XVI issued a revision, which many Jewish and Christian critics say is dismissive of the more recent Vatican teaching, namely that the Jewish covenant with God is eternal.
- ”Let us pray for the Jews. May the Lord our God enlighten their hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men. . . . Almighty and everlasting God, you who want all men to be saved and to reach the awareness of the truth, graciously grant that, with the fullness of peoples entering into your church, all Israel may be saved.”
Pope Benedict has always been fond of the old and traditional Catholic liturgy; he has encouraged many Churches to go back to conducting the mass in Latin.
Therefore, it seems strange although Rubenstein did not mention this newest revision, which only would have added considerable weight to Rubenstein’s core argument, “The word perfidious no longer appears and the tone has been sweetened, but the message remains the same and “arrive at the fullness of redemption” is thinly veiled code for let us pray that the Jews convert (p.9).
The rest of the book is a trenchant critique of Christianity—especially as understood by the Vatican. Most of the The Good Friday Prayer examines numerous theological doctrines and creeds that define Catholicism—one of these central beliefs is the notion that there is no salvation except through Christ.
Protestants also subscribe to such a belief. However, I personally feel that Rubenstein’s argument is on many levels overly simplistic. Yes, he can find comfort knowing that he has Pope Benedict XVI’s number. However, there are many Catholic thinkers who do not share the myopic view of the Catholic Church.
Take Hans Kung, for example. Kung has written extensively on the subject of salvation for non-Christian faiths. In his best books, Christianity and the World Religions: Paths to Dialogue with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, Kung persuasively argues that world peace among the various faiths demands a more theologically open and ecumenical approach that views the great faiths of the world as pathways to salvation.[1] Who knows? Rubenstein might have founded an ally in his critique of the Catholic Church.
Then again, Raimundo Panikkar was a wonderful advocate for the kind of progressive theology that Kung articulates. According to Panikkar, every Eastern and Western religion must broaden its tolerance of religious and philosophical diversity. The idea that there is a supremacy of one ethnicity over another, or the ascendancy of one religion at the expense of another, creates an ambiance of intolerance where the cacophonous sounds of preachers drown out the words of their fellow preachers. Irrespective of whether one thinks of religion as humankind’s greatest quest for self-discovery or, conversely, sees religion as a form of self-propagating spiritual virus, none of us can avoid being affected by the God Wars. The horror of the September 11, 2001 attacks, caused a sudden and jolting realization: that the same religious conflicts that have brought death and destruction in the Middle East are now an inescapable and permanent part of our psychological and societal landscape.
That being said, after demolishing one Church dogma after the other, Rubenstein then provides a critical read of the New Testament. On numerous occasions he demonstrates how Jesus’ own original teachings contradict the theology of the Church. Justifiably, Rubenstein takes an assault on Paul, who both of us believe is the real creator of Christianity—not Jesus. Sometimes he takes aim at Jesus himself. I should add that the hand of Paul and his NT redactors are present in some of the gospel narratives–especially John.
I was quite pleased to see Rubenstein use the Book of James as ammunition against Pauline Christianity. In his section on “Faith or Deeds” Rubenstein makes a wonderful frontal assault on Paul’s distortion of Jesus’ teachings.
- So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the Devil believes that and trembles. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? (James 2:18-20)
Martin Luther’s disdain for James is especially significant. Luther writes in his Preface to the NT that James is an “epistle of straw”[2] because the author rejected the Pauline doctrine of “justification by faith” that is at the heart of Pauline Christianity.[3] By referring to James’ value as “straw,” Luther wished to convey the idea that the Letter of James has no value to a Christian. Luther even argued for its removal from the NT canon because of its “Judaic” overtones.
All in all, this is a terrific book, one that will challenge the reader but it is a very slow read and cannot be properly read in short span of time. I think it would be a good book for a synagogue study on Jesus and the Gospels. It will generate considerable discussion and excitement.
What more would an author want from a book?
Notes:
[1] There is considerable irony here because Kung’s condemnation of papal infallibility resulted in the Vatican disclaimer that Kung’s theology can no longer be considered “Catholic” in 1979. Catholic friends of mine tell me that Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for Kung’s branding. When Joseph Ratzinger became the new Pope, Kung wrote, “The election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope comes as an enormous disappointment for all those who hoped for a reformist and pastoral Pope.” In 2005, he condemned John Paul II for restoring the Church to a pre-Vatican mindset, which Pope Benedict XVI has slavishly followed with vigor.
[2] M.S. and J.L. Miller, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (New York: Harper and Row Publishers,1973), 301.
[3] Paul taught, “For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28).
*
Rabbi Dr. Michael Samuel is author of Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation: Vol. 1: Genesis 1-3. He may be contacted at michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com