www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Eight Homilies Against the Jews by Saint John Chrysostom

I think of the "bad blood" between the Jews and the Samaritans and how our Lord - in His perfect timing - had an appointment with the Samaritan woman at the well - which surprised the disciples to no end. Others in the village came to Christ as this woman went and told others to come and see Him. And of course, we are all familiar with the story of the "Good Samaritan" - talk about a plot twist! Jesus brought together people who - in a natural context - would be cursing one another, pointing fingers or at each other's throats. He is our Shepherd - he rebuked the suggestion by the disciples to call down fire from Heaven on those who did not hear Him - He came to save - not destroy - men's lives. In my opinion - it's possible, as they say "to win the debate and lose a soul"; proclaiming the truth is one thing - ad hominem attacks to try to drive home a point is quite another! Did the Jewish people repent in droves or were they just driven further away - what was the fruit?

John (and Brian), you have written so truly and in a way leading to an examination of our own lives and attitudes before God. Rather than try to "calculate the last digit of pi" and promote strife, you have made this extremely practical and applicable to our lives in Christ. Thank you for speaking the truth in love and being peacemakers.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us. Teach us Your Ways.

Woody

The tendency of men today is to present an effeminate Christ who simply spoke about how we should all get along with each other. Now of course the Gospels portray a very different Christ than that, because in them He speaks of how families will be turned against each other on account of Him; and He was quite willing to speak bluntly when He needed to, calling the Pharisees "whited sepulchers" and speaking of them as �the blind leading the blind.� He also called some men the sons of their father Satan, and was willing to purify the Temple by physical force, knocking over the tables of the moneychangers, but these types of things make people uncomfortable today.

Alas, the Fathers of the Church believed that theological orthodoxy was important, and in fact they held it was so important that one could not get to heaven if he held heretical beliefs. Sadly today the heresy of indifferentism reigns supreme and religion is seen simply as a matter of private opinion. Our modern sensibilities may be offended by the preaching of the Fathers against various heresies, but perhaps they are right and we "moderns" are wrong, just some food for thought.

Frankly I lack the time and energy to reply to many of the posts in this thread. Im quite disturbed of what many here have to say in response to me. Some of you are behaving in a manner like the Chinese philosopher Kung-sun Lung-tzu, who argued that "a white horse is not a horse".

Yes I am, what makes you think Im not?
Because that was the consistent teaching of the church for 2000 years?

Because he was trying to placate a wild Jewish mob screaming for his blood. Pilate actually wanted to release Jesus.

Yes and?

Yes and?


Well that was what the church taught. If it disturbs you that much, perhaps you should consider converting to another faith.

Nice try but this argument wont fly upon closer examination. Is Jesus primarily addressing the Jewish leadership? Yes he is. But the Jewish leaders are representatives of the Jewish people as a whole; and plenty of times in the Gospels they are arising the people to be against Christ. This especially happens at the crucifixion and happens with St. Stephen. So the common Jewish folk are not entirely innocrent either, they follow the will of their leaders.

The connection between ruler and ruled was much more closely linked back then than today. The will of the leadership representated the will of the people as a whole. This was the common logic up untill the modern period, where cynicism towards leaders became more prevelant.

This was even the logic used by Christian missionaries to converting entire peoples; they started with the ruler since his will was the same of his people. When Prince Volodymyr converted to Christ, he converted the Rus(whom he ruled) with him.

So basically it seems you're projecting modern cynicism towards rulers and religious leaders onto the past.

If you read that verse closely, you'll notice that Jesus is referring to the Roman soldiers who were crucifying him. The soldiers wouldve had no idea of what they were doing; to them Christ was just another criminal to be crucified, ie another day on the job. The Jewish leaders on the other hand knew exactly what they were doing. And as Christ said to Pilate, they carry the greater guilt.

Exactly what prejudices and misconceptions of their day did they adhere to? Anti-semitism was quite rare in the Roman Empire, only emerging during the times the Romans suppressed Jewish rebellions. Other than that, Roman society was quite tolerant of them.

It's recorded that during the 1st and 2dn centuries, Roman society was going through a "craze for judaism"; where there were so many gentile vistors to synagouges special quarters had to be built to house them. Under Julius Caesar in the old Republic, Jews in Rome enjoyed great privledges and prospered, and have favorable treatment.

Even Julian the Apostate, when planning his revival of paganism and destroying Christianity, was quite favorable towards the Jews and even tried to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem.

So John Chrysostom and others were actually going against mainstream views concerning the Jews.


Hmmmn....perhaps you can validate this analogy by providing us with an example of such. Cause to my knowledge, the Church fathers believed no such thing. Specifically St. Augustine believed that the world was most probably round-shaped.

So unless you can provide an example of such, your analogy is groundless. I find it interesting you have resort to undermining the wisdom and integrity of the Church fathers to prove your point. I on the other hand have no need for such.

Does this rexamination of church beliefs also apply to issues like abortion, contraception, euthansia, priestly celibacy(at least in the Roman rite), and so on?

Yeah but how does that apply here? The Church had consistently taught that Jews were responsible for Christ's death for 2000 years.

So was the Church wrong? If so, care to tell us what else the Church has been wrong on?

I just showed this to be false. Christians were not anti-Jewish because the wider Roman society was. Rather the opposite, the Christian church was going against the generally pro-Jewish attitudes of pagan Roman society.

Exactly. The problem is that Jews refuse to accept Christ, and worse yet many significant Jews adhere to a almost pathological hatred of Christ. From the Talmud declaring Christ the son of a whore(damned to eternity covered in fesces), to their constant smear campaign against Pope Pius XII and the Church during WWII, to how Mel Gibson was unfairly treated. Or even worst of all, the brutal treatment of Arab christians by the state of Israel; not to mention how Christians in Israel are constantly complaining about Jewish fanatics spitting on them.

It was against actions and attitudes likes these that John Chrysostom was condemning in his own day.

This just can't be ignored. Even many Jewish commentators have condemned the strong anti-Christian world-view that prevails within the Jewish community.

Am I advocating pogroms or such? Absolutely not.

Kyivan Catholic

You make some very cogent points, and I for one am not prepared to re-right history or condemn Holy Scripture or the Church Fathers in the interests of ecumenicalism or political correctness.

Keep in mind that the Jews do not view the Talmud as having the same moral authority as the Scriptures. It's not like our Canon Law or Tradition - it's basically a collection of rabbinical discussions about the Scriptures. If it were written today, it would probably look a lot like our Forum - warts and all !

Also, according to Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org] :

I could be wrong, but I think the Romans were involved too.

Not to mention every sinner ever born - of whom I am the first.

Theist Gal,

Hi. Hopefully someone can back me up on this. As part of my spiritual journey, I studied Judaism deeply.

I learned about the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed movements. The basic differences (this is very simplistic at this point please) are based upon how firmly each group adheres not only to the Torah but the Talmud. The Talmud IS to the Jewish believer the equivalent of the Traditions of our early Church Fathers.

The more closely the group adheres to the Talmud, the more Orthodox the group of believers is considered. Therefore, as a result, a Reformist most likely will not feel the need to maintain Kosher, and you can find female Rabbis in the Reformist temples. A male could convert to Judaism in the local Reformed Synagogue close to where I live, and not have to be physically circumcised! He would not be considered valid though by the Orthodox and the majority of the Conservative groups. Just an example.

Conservative groups, such as our local JCC here (Jewish Community Center) in town strive to attempt to keep Kosher, firmly follow the teachings of the Torah, and tend to be mainstream. And then you have the Hassidic movement,

I just wanted to point this out. It can influence a person's opinions when they read the material presented above.
"The son of Adam" is interpreted differently by the various groups. Ms. Sharon, if you still read the forum, could you please confirm, deny, and/or correct me?

Thank you.

In Christ,

Michael

I appreciate your comments, Michael, but isn't it also true that the Talmud, while certainly the source for rabbinical law, is subject to interpretation by the rabbis who make its study their life's work? And that the historical comments made within it are not on the same level as the legal restrictions?

And another point (not directed at you, Michael ) - I have yet to encounter any religion whose historical writings do NOT contain some kind of slam against other religions. Why should Judaism be any different?

Theist,

Hi! Yes, you are correct, the Talmud is constantly being reinterpretted, based upon the spiritual direction of that particular Rabbi. The Talmud is the oral teachings passed down that were finally placed in print. It follows the same structure as the oral Traditions of our Early Fathers, and as you can see, these Traditions are constantly being challenged to see if they still validly hold up, except where the Talmud had rabbis, our Tradions have Byzcath Forum folks. (sorry for the little joke there but it is in essence the same, but not as binding). Some Judaic groups do accept these as Legal Restrictions.

It is the overall picture. The Orthodox Judaic Rabbi will hold these oral Traditons as canonical law. The Conservative will weigh them to today's relevance and use some as law, and some as guidance, and the Reformed movement will look at them as being there. See how this parallels our Traditions? The Apostolic Churches accept the early Traditions as law, for the most part. Then there is the Apostolic Church which has augmented the Traditons with further clarity and understanding (which equates to the Conservative movement), and then there are the non apostolic Churches which acknowledge the writings of our Early Fathers, but do not feel they apply to today's world or method of worship. That group equates to the Reformed movement. So we have Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformists in both the Judaic and Christian world, and both have an oral/written Tradition, and each group accepts this Tradition as law, part law, and so so law, based upon their stance.

So yes, you are right. To a Reformed Judaic person, the Talmud is a book. To the Orthodox Judaic person, however, this is law.

This is how it was explained to me during that phase of my life. I most likely am wrong, and love to learn more about this, but it is what I can relate at this point.

Regarding slams to other groups, you are correct. That is why we have to work hard towards Theosis. We are in His Image, but we as the human race, have lots and lots of opportunities!

Take care.

Michael