Introduction
In a recent episode of his show, “The Truth About Hell Every Christian Should Know,” The Daily Wire’s Pints with Aquinas show host, Matt Fradd:
- Inaccurately suggests a belief that the resumption of Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem constitutes an eschatological sign is incompatible with Catholic teaching.
- Omits Catholic leaders and intellectuals who affirmed that such a belief is consistent with Catholic teaching.
- Ignores non-dispensationalist and non-millenarian forms of Christian Zionism.
Fradd’s guest, Dr. Ralph Martin, a Catholic theologian, author, and president of Renewal Ministries who previously taught at Sacred Heart Major Seminary:
- Inaccurately suggests the Jewish nation as a whole is to blame for crucifying Jesus.
- Questionably suggests the New Testament applies such terms as “hard-hearted” and “stiff-necked” to the whole Jewish nation.
- Ignores cautionary words from the Catholic Bishop of Scranton against employing an anti-Jewish trope.
- Presents a distorted picture of the Jewish State and Israeli society by describing them in only negative terms.
Both Fradd and Martin:
- Omit a Jewish religious attachment to the land of Israel.
- Cast doubt on the legitimacy of the State of Israel while excluding its positive functions.
Suggests Eschatological Jewish-Sovereignty-Over-Jerusalem Belief is Incompatible with Catholicism
When Fradd asks Martin: “What indication might we have that the end is coming,” Martin’s response includes eschatological expectations about the Jewish people:
He [Jesus] does give a number of really significant signs that will come in close proximity to his return […] One is that there’s going to be some final dealing with Israel. You know, after the full number of Gentiles enter in, God’s going to then turn his attention to the Jewish people and give them a chance at recognizing their savior, and it seems like many people are going to respond. There’s another text that says: “Jerusalem’s going to be trampled down by the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles has come to an end,” so there’s a couple witnesses to the theme of the time of the Gentiles coming to an end and God dealing with Israel. Of course, Jerusalem was trampled by the Gentiles for thousands of years until 1947-1948, the birth of the State of Israel, and then 1967—the Six-Day War—they took control of Jerusalem, so at a certain time in the not-too-distant past, the time of the Gentiles trampling Jerusalem came to an end, and the Jews now control Jerusalem.
After hearing Martin’s response, Fradd asks Martin: “Aren’t we falling into the Protestant error of Christian Zionism in saying that the modern State of Israel is necessary? Why think that?” In posing such questions in these terms, Fradd suggests that Christian Zionism is a “Protestant error.” However, the Catholic Church has not issued an official teaching on Christian Zionism, let alone declared it a “Protestant error.” Fradd’s question presupposes that Catholics cannot simultaneously support Christian Zionism and be faithful to Catholic teaching. However, the Catholic Church’s notable restraint in refraining from rendering a formal magisterial judgement on Christian Zionism leaves open the possibility that faithful Catholics could affirm Christian Zionist beliefs.
Omits Catholics Who Hold This Eschatological Belief is Consistent with Catholicism
In suggesting that an eschatological belief in the resumption of Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem is tantamount to subscribing to “Protestant error,” Fradd omits Catholic leaders and intellectuals who have affirmed this eschatological belief. For example, Father Elias Friedman, a Carmelite monk and priest who joined the Stella Maris Monastery in Israel, viewed Jerusalem’s reunification under Jewish sovereignty as a sign that the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24) were ending (Jewish Identity, pp. 133-137). The Merrimack College Assistant Professor of Religious and Theological Studies Emma O’Donnell Polyakov describes Father Friedman’s perspective as “a Catholic version of evangelical Christian Zionist eschatology” (The Nun in the Synagogue: Judeocentric Catholicism in Israel, p. 112). Similarly, the Catholic Kenrick-Glennon Seminary Associate Professor of Theology Lawrence Feingold has affirmed:
The fact that the Land of Israel is somehow “married” again, to use Isaiah’s language [“your land shall be married. For as a young man marries a virgin, so shall your sons marry you” (Is. 62:4-5)], to the Jewish people cannot be regarded as theologically insignificant from the Christian perspective, as from the Jewish. If Jerusalem is always an eschatological sign, how much more a Jerusalem in which the Land is “wedded” again in some sense to the People of the Promise. It makes sense, therefore, that the return of the Land and of Jerusalem to Jewish sovereignty after so many centuries of exile should be considered a sign of the times that should be read through the illumination of the Holy Spirit (Contemporary Catholic Approaches to the People, Land, and State of Israel, p. 11).
Both Friedman and Feingold maintain that an eschatological belief in the return of the Jewish people to their land and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem is fully consistent with Catholic teaching. Catholic leaders have also affirmed a connection between the establishment of the State of Israel and biblical prophecy. For example, the former Archbishop of Vienna and key editor of the Catechism Cardinal Christoph Schönborn has observed: “Hardly anybody will dispute that the foundation of this state [of Israel] had something to do with the biblical prophecy even if that something is hard to define.”
Ignores Non-Dispensationalist and Non-Millenarian Forms of Christian Zionism
By referencing Christian Zionism only in the context of considering whether Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem in contemporary times constitutes an eschatological sign, Fradd leaves viewers with the impression that all proponents of Christian Zionism subscribe to dispensationalist or millenarian beliefs. In fact, a number of Christian Zionists do not subscribe to dispensationalism or millenarianism, but rather simply affirm a belief in Israel’s continuing role in divine providence and the Jewish people’s connection to their ancestral homeland.
The historian of religion and scholar of Christian Zionism Daniel G. Hummel has observed that eschatology is less central to the most activist circles of Christian Zionism: “In its most activist circles today, Christian Zionism is less about apocalyptic theology or evangelism than it is a range of political, historical, and theological arguments in favor of the State of Israel based on mutual and covenantal solidarity” (Covenant Brothers: Evangelicals, Jews, and U.S.-Israeli Relations, p. 3).
Dispensationalism plays less of a role in motivating young evangelical advocates of Christian Zionism as indicated by survey data analyzed by scholars of Christian Zionism Motti Inbari and Kirill Bumin showing a “relative decline of premillennialism” among this demographic (Christian Zionism in the Twenty-First Century: American Evangelical Public Opinion on Israel, p. 163). Inbari and Bumin observed that 20% of young evangelical Christian Zionists “gave political, historical, or foreign policy justifications” (Ibid., p. 152) for such support, not dispensationalist reasons.
In fact, survey data indicate a majority of respondents who meet the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) criteria for “Evangelical” (67.3%) and a majority of non-NAE Protestants (64.3%) report their “support for Israel comes from caring about the Jewish people today, not from beliefs about the End Times,” belying the suggestion that most Protestant support for Israel derives from eschatological beliefs.
The Catholic theologian and Sacred Heart Major Seminary Associate Professor of Old Testament & Biblical Languages André Villeneuve has noted how Fradd’s past treatment of the subject of Christian Zionism has failed to engage with non-dispensationalist and non-millenarian factors motivating Christian support for the State of Israel, such as “the history of Christian anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and a sincere desire to repair that legacy.”
Cast Doubt on the Legitimacy of the State of Israel and Exclude Israel’s Positive Roles
Fradd’s questioning of whether the State of Israel is necessary without adding further qualifying language could be interpreted as contradicting his assertion in an earlier The Daily Wire opinion piece, “Why Ted Cruz Is Wrong About Christian Zionism,” that the Catholic Church views the modern State of Israel as “a legitimate political entity.” Martin responds to Fradd’s queries about whether the State of Israel is necessary in the negative, suggesting Martin concurs with Fradd’s suggestion that the State of Israel is not necessary. Neither Fradd nor Martin mention Catholics who have affirmed the significance of the State of Israel in theological terms, whether as an “express[ion] [of] God’s faithfulness to the people of Israel,” as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has claimed (“Grace and Vocation Without Remorse: Comments on the Treatise De Iudaeis,” p. 179), or as a means of ensuring that the eschatological Jewish recognition of Jesus is “sincere” due to an absence of “external social pressure [in a Land where Jews are entirely free to make such a move],” as Father Antoine Lévy has argued (Jewish Church, p. 342).
Omit Jewish Religious Attachment to the Land of Israel
The religious attachment of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland likewise goes unmentioned in both this episode and that article despite the fact that this Jewish religious attachment to the land of Israel has been recognized by the Catholic Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews in the document, Notes on the Correct Way to Present Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church, which states: “Christians are invited to understand this [Jewish] religious attachment which finds its roots in Biblical tradition.” By not even mentioning this religious connection of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland, Fradd failed to provide his audience with an opportunity to accept this invitation to understand a Jewish religious attachment to the land of Israel. Since Notes acknowledges that such a Jewish religious attachment to the land of Israel “finds its roots in Biblical tradition,” Fradd has also effectively deprived his audience of an understanding of how Jews have interpreted the Old Testament, a document Catholics consider authoritative sacred scripture and revelation.
Notes promotes “Christians […] profiting discerningly from the traditions of Jewish reading” and features a statement by Pope John Paul II indicating: “The faith and religious life of the Jewish people as they are professed and practiced still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the life of the Church.” Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas Lecturer Gavin D’Costa has argued that the process of seeking to comprehend a Jewish self-understanding can serve as a means by which “Catholics might see the face of God, the Father of Jesus Christ, and witness to His presence in ways they have not been cultivated to discern until recently” (Catholic Doctrines on the Jewish People after Vatican II, p. 56). In light of what Notes, Pope John Paul II, and D’Costa have said about how the Catholic Church would benefit from understanding Jewish faith, religious life, and interpretations of Scripture, it is regrettable that Fradd neglected to mention these subjects in the context of discussing the Jewish people and the land of Israel.
Inaccurately Suggests the Jewish Nation as a Whole is to Blame for Crucifying Jesus
Martin suggests the whole Jewish nation killed Jesus: “[Y]ou have a [Jewish] nation […] That’s what they did to Jesus […] [T]hey crucified him.” Historically, Jesus died by crucifixion, a Roman form of execution. Martin’s suggestion that the Jewish people as a whole, rather than a subgroup among them, played a role in bringing about Jesus’ death does not accord with the speeches of Peter and Stephen in Acts, which do not blame “the Jews” for Jesus’ death. As Brite Divinity School Professor of New Testament Shelly Matthews has noted:
In these accusations of Christ killing, the groups responsible are never said to be “the Jews”/hoi Ioudaioi. They are rather “residents of Jerusalem,” “rulers,” “Israelites,” and sometimes “you” –the Jewish groups listening to Peter, Paul, and Stephen speak. Because the specific agents accused in these speeches can vary, some argue that Acts restricts blame for the killing of Jesus to a subgroup of Jews, rather than to the Jews as a whole” (Judeophobia and the New Testament: Texts and Contexts, p. 162).
Martin’s apparent assignment of blame to the Jewish nation as a whole without qualification also ignores the admonition of the Second Vatican Council document, Nostra Aetate: “[W]hat happened in His [Jesus’] passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.” Given that Martin in the interview expresses approval of the Second Vatican Council and Fradd in his earlier article approvingly referenced Nostra Aetate, it is regrettable that Martin’s description ignores this portion of Nostra Aetate and Fradd fails to challenge Martin’s description.
Similarly, a 1988 National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs document, “Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion,” explicitly warns: “The Pharisees should not be depicted as party to the proceedings against Jesus (Notes III, 24-27).” By cautioning against portraying a particular Jewish subgroup—the Pharisees—as “party to the proceedings against Jesus,” this document helps to make clear that the Jewish nation as a whole should not be regarded as responsible for Jesus’ death.
Questionably Suggests the New Testament Applies Specific Terms to the Jewish Nation
Martin describes the Jewish nation as “hard-hearted” and “stiff-necked” in linking alleged Israelite and Jewish sinful behavior found in the Old Testament and New Testament to alleged Jewish sinful behavior in the present. Although the Hebrew Bible applies the descriptors “hard-hearted” and “stiff-necked” to Israelites, Martin questionably suggests the New Testament applies this language to the Jewish nation as a whole.
While a number of interpreters have translated Romans 11:25 as “Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,” this New Testament text can be understood as indicating that a “hardening” has come upon only part of Israel—non-remnant Israel—not the whole Jewish nation.
Interestingly, while Paul in Romans 9:17-18 does use parallel terminology to that used in Exodus 9:12, 16 to describe Pharaoh’s hardened heart, he notably refrains from applying the same language to Israelites and their hearts. As the New Testament scholar Mark D. Nanos explains:
Paul does not use σκληρός or cognates to describe the state of Israelites; instead, he uses πώρωσις in 11.25 (and as a passive verb in v. 7: ἐπoρώθησαν) to describe the state of some (many) of his fellow Israelites. πώρωσις (verb πωρόω) refers to a “callus” (verb: to callus)[,] not to “hardness” or even “blindness” per se […] Paul does not mention the heart (Reading Romans within Judaism: Collected Essays of Mark D. Nanos: Vol. 2, pp. 154-156).
In fact, Nanos observes that “there is no evidence that πώρωσις was used to refer to the heart during Paul’s time” (Ibid., p. 156). Nanos has argued that the decision of interpreters to translate πώρωσις in Romans 11:25 as “hardening” rather than “callusing” undermines the main thrust of Paul’s argumentation in Romans on behalf of Israel while employing unhelpful and inaccurate terminology carrying a negative valence:
Given the negative valence of hardness in English combined with the derisive association to the disposition of Pharaoh’s heart, hardening is not a helpful or an accurate translation choice for Paul’s discussion of the condition of the Israelites he seeks to discuss. The difference implied can be profound; translating this as hardened in the sense of obdurate, stubborn, or insensitive hearts may obscure the very thrust of Paul’s argument. This problem is evident in most discussion of this passage, for the prevailing approaches interpret hardness in a way that cannot avoid undermining the sympathetic force of Paul’s argument, and thus the sympathetic interpreter, inadvertently but ineluctably, winds up expressing a negative judgment of intentions in the midst of seeking to communicate a message of goodwill (Ibid., pp. 155-156).
According to Nanos, the decision to translate Paul’s language as “callus” rather than “harden” not only better fits Paul’s argument in Romans on behalf of Israel, but also provides more positive interpretive possibilities:
If Paul meant “callus,” this need not carry the negative valence that “harden” does. Instead, it would offer a more positive and arguably more salient choice that has to do with the healing and protecting process that takes place after an injury has occurred […] If discussing a callus in English, we would express this as “has developed” or “has formed”: “that a callus has developed/formed for Israel.” Either way, this also communicates the idea that the callus “has happened” for the benefit of some Israelites or Israel (Ibid., pp. 165-166).
A number of scholars have argued that interpretations that translate other New Testament texts (e.g., Mark 3:5, John 12:40, and Ephesians 4:18) as meaning “hardened” are implausible readings as well (see Epistle to the Ephesians, pp. 264-274). In any event, the context of Mark 3:5 suggests only a group of Pharisees with whom Jesus is interacting are described as having “hardness of heart,” not the Jewish nation as a whole. John 12:40 features a paraphrase of the Septuagint version of Isaiah 6:10: “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart,” but two verses later in John 12:42, readers are informed: “Nevertheless[,] many, even of the authorities, believed in him [Jesus],” suggesting that the whole Jewish nation did not stubbornly reject Jesus. Acts 28:26-27 adduces Isaiah 6:9-10, but the passage immediately preceding this reference to Isaiah in Acts indicates that “some were convinced by what he [Paul] said,” suggesting the verse is being applied to those who were not convinced of Paul’s message.
In expounding on Luke 2:34 in the interview, Martin claims that Jews “hardened their hearts,” but John’s paraphrase of Isaiah suggests God is the agent of the “hardening.” Likewise, Paul’s language in Romans suggests God has caused the “hardening.” As The King’s University Professor of Theology Douglas Harink explains:
Paul insists that the current condition of Israel’s “hardening” is entirely God’s doing. Israel’s actions and moral condition […] do not enter the picture at all. If Israel “remains bound” in a condition, it is because God has bound it there (11:32). Indeed, that is precisely the point of Paul noting, with reference to Jacob and Esau, that God’s purpose was declared to Rebecca “before they had been born or had done anything good or bad…” (9:11). God’s choosing “the younger,” Jacob, is not injustice on God’s part precisely because the issue is not about moral success or failure but about God’s mercy and hardening, enacted not with respect to moral condition, but strictly with respect to a divine purpose that must be accomplished (Paul among the Postliberals: Pauline Theology Beyond Christendom and Modernity, p. 170).
2 Corinthians 3:14 speaks not of a “hardening of the heart,” but of “minds,” while employing terminology linked to the “callused” language mentioned earlier. Ephesians 4:18 seems to describe the “hardness of heart” not of Jews, but rather of Gentiles. Moreover, as Matthews alluded to earlier, a number of scholars hold that Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:51, in which the descriptor “stiff-necked” appears, can reasonably be interpreted as directed at a subgroup of Jews, not the Jewish nation as a whole. The fact that such New Testament passages frequently feature Jews, like Jesus, Paul, and Stephen, describing other Jews in such terms suggests that such descriptors should not be understood as applying to the whole Jewish nation.
Ignores Cautionary Words from Catholic Bishop of Scranton about Anti-Jewish Trope
In applying terminology suggestive of stubbornness, like “stiff-necked,” to the contemporary Jewish nation, Martin ignores the cautionary words issued by the Catholic Bishop of Scranton, Most Rev. Joseph C. Bambera, in the 2024 American Jewish Committee and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs Committee document, Translate Hate: The Catholic Edition, suggesting faithful Catholics should not apply these terms to the Jewish people:
[T]he image of the Jewish people as “stubborn, stiff-necked, and blind” is a traditional anti-Jewish trope that is in danger of being used for antisemitic purposes […] Far from considering the Jewish people stubborn and blind, the Catholic Church understands the Jewish people as the first to hear the word of God who continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.
Earlier in the interview, Martin denies the charge of antisemitism for expressing the belief that Jews, among others, “need to repent and believe in him [Jesus] and to be baptized and join the Catholic Church.” However, Martin’s characterization of the Jewish nation employs what Bishop Bambera identifies as an anti-Jewish trope that could be utilized to advance antisemitic ends while misrepresenting how the Catholic Church understands the Jewish people.
Presents a Distorted Picture of the Jewish State and Israeli Society
In describing the current state of the Jewish nation in only negative terms, Martin presents a distorted picture of the Jewish State that omits developments in Israeli society that he would presumably regard as positive. For example, Martin’s comments about the stubbornness of the Jewish nation with regard to recognition of Jesus could leave viewers with the impression that the State of Israel is inhospitable to Christians.
In fact, while the Christian population in the broader Middle East has declined, the Israeli Christian population has increased and flourished in the region’s only state where Islam is not the dominant religion. Unlike its neighbors, the State of Israel accords equal rights to its citizens regardless of religion, race, or sex while ensuring freedom of religion for all Israelis. Moreover, Israel’s Protection of Holy Places Law protects holy places from desecration and grants members of different religions access to holy places. In the episode, Martin affirms that Muslims should follow Jesus. Israel College of the Bible Dean Dr. Seth D. Postell has observed that it is precisely the freedom afforded by the State of Israel that has enabled former Muslims who wish to follow Jesus to do so, an act legally prohibited or punishable in countries surrounding Israel.
Martin’s language about a future Jewish recognition of Jesus could leave viewers with the impression that Jewish believers in Jesus in the Jewish State either do not currently exist or presently constitute a beleaguered minority. However, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill historian of religion and leading expert on the subject of Messianic Jews Yaakov Ariel has observed how Messianic Jews have successfully made inroads in most of Israeli society, where traditional aversion toward conversion to Christianity has significantly receded:
[T]his Israeli evangelical movement had been making converts in almost all segments of society. Much of the stigma surrounding conversion to Christianity had faded away, at least in the non-Orthodox community, as Israeli culture became more inclusive and tolerant and as new religious movements became part of the Israeli scene. For many secular Israelis, Messianic Jews had become just a friendly new religious movement, not a threat to Israeli society (An Unusual Relationship: Evangelical Christians and Jews, p. 236).
Ariel has also noted how the Messianic Jewish community has increased in the Jewish State:
The community of Messianic Jews in Israel grew considerably from the 1970s on. From no more than a few hundred people in the mid-1960s, it grew to over fifteen thousand by the 2010s […] By the 2010s, the demography of the Messianic congregations was a far cry from the realities of the earlier years (Ibid.).
Israel College of the Bible President Dr. Erez Soref observed in June 2026 that the number of Messianic Jews in the Jewish State is conservatively estimated to be “well over 30,000 to 50,000.” Postell has observed that a One for Israel Ministry YouTube channel for Hebrew-speakers dedicated to sharing the Gospel about Jesus with Israelis is one of the most-watched YouTube channels by those speaking Hebrew, suggesting a hunger among many in Israel for such content:
[W]hat’s actually going on here [in Israel]? […] [O]ne of the things that we are watching is a resurgence of real hunger for the Gospel […] [W]e have a YouTube channel that’s only for Hebrew-speakers […] where we’re explaining the Gospel in Hebrew to Israelis […] We have over a million subscribers in a Hebrew-alone YouTube channel […] If you look at all of the biggest YouTube channels in Israel, there’s a YouTube channel that’s devoted to sharing the Gospel in Hebrew—I think there’s, what, only nine million Hebrew-speakers in the world?—We have a YouTube channel with over a million followers with people constantly writing us and asking us questions, and we’re watching every week Israelis coming to faith […] [W]hy not get excited about what God’s actually doing here in reaching Israelis?
Ariel has even remarked that Messianic Jews are “perhaps the fastest-growing religious movement in the country” (Evangelizing the Chosen People: Missions to the Jews in America, 1880-2000, p. 275). It is worth noting in this regard that Catholic leaders who have met with Messianic Jewish leaders have recognized the emergence of the Messianic Jewish movement as “a work of the Holy Spirit.” There is also a vibrant Hebrew Catholic community in the State of Israel. However, viewers watching Fradd’s interview with Martin were not presented with any of these facts about flourishing Christian communities in the Jewish State and the growth of Jewish believers of Jesus in Israeli society.
Conclusion
In a recent episode of his show, Fradd inaccurately suggests a belief that Jews exercising sovereignty over Jerusalem constitutes an eschatological sign is incompatible with Catholic teaching, excludes Catholic leaders and intellectuals who have maintained that this belief is consistent with Catholic teaching, and omits non-dispensationalist and non-millenarian forms of Christian Zionism. Martin inaccurately suggests the whole Jewish nation is to blame for crucifying Jesus, questionably suggests the New Testament applies the descriptors “hard-hearted” and “stiff-necked” to the Jewish nation, ignores cautionary words by the Catholic Bishop of Scranton against using an anti-Jewish trope, and presents a distorted picture of the Jewish State and Israeli society by depicting them in solely negative terms. Both Fradd and Martin omit a Jewish religious attachment to the land of Israel and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Jewish State while neglecting to mention how Catholic leaders have assigned positive roles to the State of Israel. Hopefully, future episodes of the Pints with Aquinas show will feature more accurate and balanced presentations of the State of Israel and Christian Zionism.