Books by André Villeneuve
In Nuptial Symbolism in Second Temple Writings, the New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, André ... more In Nuptial Symbolism in Second Temple Writings, the New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, André Villeneuve examines the ancient Jewish concept of the covenant between God and Israel, portrayed as a marriage dynamically moving through salvation history. This nuptial covenant was established in Eden but damaged by sin; it was restored at the Sinai theophany, perpetuated in the Temple liturgy, and expected to reach its final consummation at the end of days.
The authors of the New Testament adopted the same key moments of salvation history to describe the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church. In their typological treatment of these motifs, they established an exegetical framework that would anticipate the four senses of Scripture later adopted by patristic and medieval commentators.
Papers by André Villeneuve
The Revelation of Your Words, 2021
Nuptial Symbolism in Second Temple Writings, the New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, 2016
In Nuptial Symbolism in Second Temple Writings, the New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, André ... more In Nuptial Symbolism in Second Temple Writings, the New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, André Villeneuve examines the ancient Jewish concept of the covenant between God and Israel, portrayed as a marriage dynamically moving through salvation history. This nuptial covenant was established in Eden but damaged by sin; it was restored at the Sinai theophany, perpetuated in the Temple liturgy, and expected to reach its final consummation at the end of days. The authors of the New Testament adopted the same key moments of salvation history to describe the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church. In their typological treatment of these motifs, they established an exegetical framework that would anticipate the four senses of Scripture later adopted by patristic and medieval commentators.
Starting from the authoritative rejection of supersessionism by the Vatican II declaration Nostra... more Starting from the authoritative rejection of supersessionism by the Vatican II declaration Nostra aetate, this essay considers the eschatological destiny of Israel according to the Hebrew prophets in light of Catholic documents on Judaism and the Jewish people. After distinguishing between three different types of supersessionism, it reviews the nature of God’s covenant with the Jews according to Catholic magisterial documents, as well as the place of Israel in both ancient and modern Catholic biblical exegesis. The heart of the essay is a survey of four prophetic passages from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah. The patristic interpretation of these passages is contrasted with the views of four modern Catholic commentaries to consider the extent to which they have rejected supersessionism along with the implications of this rejection for eschatology. The essay concludes that although there has been substantial progress in overcoming punitive and economic supersessionism in Catholic exegesis, there remains much work to be done in overcoming the problem of structural supersessionism, which either ignores Israel’s covenant, mission, and eschatological destiny, or subsumes these into the Church. Overcoming “structural supersessionism” thus implies a restoration of the place of the people and land of Israel in Catholic eschatology, which may require rethinking tacit commitments to amillennialism and reconsidering the biblical and theological merits of historic premillennialism.
“Catholic Messianic Judaism”: Is this expression not an oxymoron? Are not Messianic Judaism and C... more “Catholic Messianic Judaism”: Is this expression not an oxymoron? Are not Messianic Judaism and Catholicism radically different, if not virtually opposed to each other? On the one hand, Messianic Jews take pride in expressing their faith in Yeshua in a Jewish way, often insisting that they are “not Christians” but Jews who believe in the Messiah of Israel. For a number of theological, historical and cultural reasons, most Messianic Jews are at best ambivalent regarding their relationship with traditional Christianity. On the other hand, Catholicism is precisely the epitome of “traditional Christianity,” with its crucifixes, statues, liturgy and sacraments, veneration of Mary and the saints, and many other customs and practices that seem far from the spirit of Judaism. How then could we expect Catholicism and Messianic Judaism to come together?
Or perhaps the whole idea is a utopia: We could conceive of some form of loose bond whereby we acknowledge those beliefs we hold in common and generally get along, with each side doing their own thing. In other words, some form of “catholic Messianic Judaism” might be conceivable as long as we mean “catholic” with a small “c”, where Messianic Jews are members of the universal, spiritual Body of Christ, but formally have little or nothing to do with the institutional Catholic Church.
Or perhaps there might be a divine purpose for a true integration of Messianic Judaism and the Catholic Church? I would like to argue in favor of this third alternative.
Christ Our Passover: Theological Exegesis of St. Paul , 2015
The First Epistle to the Corinthians does not explicitly refer to the marriage between Christ and... more The First Epistle to the Corinthians does not explicitly refer to the marriage between Christ and the Church, except for perhaps a veiled reference in 6:15–20. But a close examination of Paul’s temple mystagogy, especially when read in light of the Adam and Exodus/Sinai motifs, reveals many nuptial allusions: if Christ is the new Adam (15:45), and the “body” of the new Adam is the Church (12:27), called to share in intimate communion (koinonia) with Him (1:9), then the Church must be Christ’s Bride and the new Eve. Believers are baptized into this collective mystical Body by the Holy Spirit (12:13). This sacrament makes the body of every individual believer a temple consecrated to Christ, inhabited by the indwelling presence of the Spirit (6:19). The Christian life is thus understood as temple worship, sacred service, and nuptial mystery. As a living temple, the baptized believer participates in koinonia with Christ, especially by sharing at His table and partaking of His body and blood (10:16). This exchange, in itself, represents a kind of “one flesh” nuptial union; yet it can be destroyed through sexual immorality, which is tantamount to idolatry (6:18; 10:7–8). Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacramental means of entering into and maintaining communion with Christ, are depicted as the fulfillment of the Exodus and Sinai theophany (10:1–4). The concrete expression of this communion is the call to the members of the community to love each other with a generous and selfless agape, in imitation of Christ and for the sake of building up the Body (8:1; 13:1–13). Paul’s temple and nuptial theology is directed toward a definitive eschatological fulfillment on the day of the final resurrection of the dead, when the Christian’s perishable and mortal anthropic temple will put on the imperishable and immortal (15:51–54; see 2 Cor. 5:1–4), and the veiled nuptial mystery will be revealed in all its glory (see Rev. 19:7–9; 21:2).
When God first uttered His eternal Word to man in human speech, He did so in the Hebrew language.... more When God first uttered His eternal Word to man in human speech, He did so in the Hebrew language. And yet a disproportionate emphasis on Latin and Greek in Catholic academic institutions often comes at the expense of Hebrew. Why this imbalance? Is Hebrew less important than Greek for the study of the Sacred Page? Is it too difficult to learn? Is it neglected for theological reasons, because of neo-Marcionist or supersessionist attitudes that tend to depreciate the value of the Old Testament? Is Hebrew given less attention because of a “classical bias” favoring Latin and Greek over Hebrew and the Semitic languages? I would like to propose ten reasons why the serious study of Hebrew is essential—and at least as important as Greek and Latin—for the study of theology in Catholic seminaries and theological institutes.
Uploads
Books by André Villeneuve
The authors of the New Testament adopted the same key moments of salvation history to describe the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church. In their typological treatment of these motifs, they established an exegetical framework that would anticipate the four senses of Scripture later adopted by patristic and medieval commentators.
Papers by André Villeneuve
Or perhaps the whole idea is a utopia: We could conceive of some form of loose bond whereby we acknowledge those beliefs we hold in common and generally get along, with each side doing their own thing. In other words, some form of “catholic Messianic Judaism” might be conceivable as long as we mean “catholic” with a small “c”, where Messianic Jews are members of the universal, spiritual Body of Christ, but formally have little or nothing to do with the institutional Catholic Church.
Or perhaps there might be a divine purpose for a true integration of Messianic Judaism and the Catholic Church? I would like to argue in favor of this third alternative.
The authors of the New Testament adopted the same key moments of salvation history to describe the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church. In their typological treatment of these motifs, they established an exegetical framework that would anticipate the four senses of Scripture later adopted by patristic and medieval commentators.
Or perhaps the whole idea is a utopia: We could conceive of some form of loose bond whereby we acknowledge those beliefs we hold in common and generally get along, with each side doing their own thing. In other words, some form of “catholic Messianic Judaism” might be conceivable as long as we mean “catholic” with a small “c”, where Messianic Jews are members of the universal, spiritual Body of Christ, but formally have little or nothing to do with the institutional Catholic Church.
Or perhaps there might be a divine purpose for a true integration of Messianic Judaism and the Catholic Church? I would like to argue in favor of this third alternative.