Hi All, I am Jacob, a 22 year old from Melbourne, Australia. I've been on the PB for the past year or so but have hardly contributed myself. I wanted to post a threat about Anti-Semitism because I am seeing it increasingly online, especially on X which I chronically scroll through on my lunch breaks.
My questions to you all are as follows, feel free to only address one of these:
Q1) Jesus had a very negative posture towards the Jewish elite of his day, should we share a similar negative posture towards contemporary Jewish elites? Or were they uniquely evil and powerful in Christ's day?
Q2) Puritan William Prynne wrote in 1656 attempting to maintain the expulsion of the jews from England. Is expelling a particularly threatening ethnic group of people ever justified? Or is it biblically unjust to punish the collective based an the actions of individuals?
Q3) If it is true the jews have oversized influence in the p0rnography industry, Hollywood and Central Banking, should we begin opposing the particular people group that run them? Or should we merely oppose the institution and disregard the ethnicity of its promoters?
Q4) What do we make of our Christian hero's who wrote 'antisemitic' material like Luther, Chrysostom and Veotius?
Apologies if this is not the right place to pose these controversial questions, all of my basic doctrinal questions have been answered in previous threads and I only have spicy questions left.
I do think these questions will become increasingly relevant for ministers to consider as time goes on, especially as Jewish questions gain traction in the young adult circles I am in.
Hi All, I am Jacob, a 22 year old from Melbourne, Australia. I've been on the PB for the past year or so but have hardly contributed myself. I wanted to post a threat about Anti-Semitism because I am seeing it increasingly online, especially on X which I chronically scroll through on my lunch breaks.
My questions to you all are as follows, feel free to only address one of these:
Q1) Jesus had a very negative posture towards the Jewish elite of his day, should we share a similar negative posture towards contemporary Jewish elites? Or were they uniquely evil and powerful in Christ's day?
Yes. They were uniquely evil then. They were the generation that actually saw the Messiah Himself performing the signs of God and rejected Him. And on them came the punishment (destruction in 70 AD) for not only this but for the blood of the prophets whom their fathers killed. Even Josephus, a Jew, writes about how evil Jews were in that day.
Q2) Puritan William Prynne wrote in 1656 attempting to maintain the expulsion of the jews from England. Is expelling a particularly threatening ethnic group of people ever justified? Or is it biblically unjust to punish the collective based an the actions of individuals?
It's important here to distinguish between genetics and religion. Unfortunately, the term "Jew" today is used for both. But there are genetic Jews who do not practice Judaism. Some of them (like Marx) are worse for turning to Satanism and nihilism. Some are better for accepting the Messiah. I can see a hypothetical case for expelling people of a certain religion, but the case of Jews is much too foggy.
Q3) If it is true the jews have oversized influence in the p0rnography industry, Hollywood and Central Banking, should we begin opposing the particular people group that run them? Or should we merely oppose the institution and disregard the ethnicity of its promoters?
Oppose the institution. A large chunk of the bad people aren't Jews of any kind. And as bad as the Talmud is, I doubt most of those Jews even attend synagogue. If they do, society ought to draw attention to that particular synagogue as we do mosques that preach a more radical form of Islam. Everyone in that industry needs to repent and believe the gospel, Jews or otherwise.
Luther supported the slow death in a dark hole of Fritz Erbe for not baptizing his children. We have to come to terms with the fact that some of our Christian heroes have done things far worse than writing antisemitic material.
I do think these questions will become increasingly relevant for ministers to consider as time goes on, especially as Jewish questions gain traction in the young adult circles I am in.
Hi Jacob, good question. This is a little fresh on my mind after having just read Ullrich’s two-volume biography of Hitler. I do not have time to really engage right now since church starts soon, but I think antisemitism is a massive, vile stain on the witness of Christians. It is true that Christ was especially harsh on the Jewish leaders of his day, but it must be understood that it was not because they were Jews, but rather because they were religious leaders.
Yes, Jews have largely apostatized, but the New Testament teaches us that if anything our attitude toward them should be missional. In the writings of Paul alone we are told that the Gospel is to go to them first, that he would (if he could) trade his salvation for condemnation that they might be saved, and that he expects a future restoration of Jews en masse in Christ. Instead of reviling and sending away and speaking derogatory words we ought to be brokenhearted over them, praying for and pleading with them to trust in Christ for their salvation, that they may be re-engrafted to the branch from whence they fell. When will Christians learn to love their Jewish neighbor?
Hi All, I am Jacob, a 22 year old from Melbourne, Australia. I've been on the PB for the past year or so but have hardly contributed myself. I wanted to post a threat about Anti-Semitism because I am seeing it increasingly online, especially on X which I chronically scroll through on my lunch breaks.
My questions to you all are as follows, feel free to only address one of these:
Before I get to the questions, there is a very important distinction that is consistently ignored by Antisemites, Judeophiliacs, and many Jews whose position is strengthened by ignoring the distinction. For the sake of this discussion I'll define Judeophilia as a disproportionate, misplaced or badly applied fondness for the Jewish people or with things frequently associated with it, and Antisemitism as the exact opposite of that.
The distinction is as following:
The national and ethnic Jewish people is distinct from the religion commonly called Judaism, and both of these are distinct from the modern State of Israel; though all three concepts have a lot of points in common, not all that can be said of one can be said of another, and membership with or relation to one does not necessarily entail membership in or relation to the others. Additionally, diffrent people will have varying levels of belonging to relation to each of these.
Q1) Jesus had a very negative posture towards the Jewish elite of his day, should we share a similar negative posture towards contemporary Jewish elites? Or were they uniquely evil and powerful in Christ's day?
Jesus had a very negative posture towards the men who were actively driving the majority of a whole nation - His nation according to the flesh - and at the time the entirety of God's people on earth, to apostasy. As DanSSwing pointed out, this did not end well.
The rabbis say "The first temple, why was it destroyed? For there was in it foreign worship. the second temple, why was it destroyed? For there was in it causeless hate". But they never ask themselves why there was vain hate. The real answer is "The second temple, why was it destroyed? For there was not in it true worship" - the worship of the Christ which came to them.
That said, genuine criticism of Jewish leaders, not rooted in an ethnic hatred and expressed with the appropriate level of harshness & charity, directed in the right direction, is not only acceptable but good & necessary.
Q3) If it is true the jews have oversized influence in the p0rnography industry, Hollywood and Central Banking, should we begin opposing the particular people group that run them? Or should we merely oppose the institution and disregard the ethnicity of its promoters?
I have not read Chrysostom or Veotius. As for Luther, his main error was giving up on us too soon. He argued that there is no use arguing with those who follow Judaism. Add to that hos colourful language, and you get ample propaganda material for anti-Protestant Judeophiles and supposedly Protestant Nazis.
Apologies if this is not the right place to pose these controversial questions, all of my basic doctrinal questions have been answered in previous threads and I only have spicy questions left.
I do think these questions will become increasingly relevant for ministers to consider as time goes on, especially as Jewish questions gain traction in the young adult circles I am in.
Gavin Beers from the American Mission of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) has been beginning a series on these things. It's on the sermonaudio and youtube channels of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church Mebane. So far I found him to be reasonable and helpful in these teachings.
Many things could be said here. One thing I would encourage you to do is to pray for the future conversion of the Jewish people.
William Gouge, one of our beloved forefathers, states that one reason to pray for the future conversion of the Jews is because they prayed for us Gentiles before we were grafted in. So how much should we desire the restoration of those who once longed for our day of Gospel blessing?
“As we ought to take notice of all God’s promises, and pray for the accomplishment of them, Ezek. xxxvi. 37, so of this particular concerning the calling of the Jews, and pray for the accomplishment thereof. This is so much the rather to be done, because the time was when we were out of Christ, and then they prayed for us; so as zeal of God’s glory, desire of the enlargement of Christ’s kingdom, and gratefulness to that stock whence they come, ought to stir us up to do what lies in us for the accomplishment of God’s promise concerning their call.”
-William Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews, Kregel Publications, pg. 561
All forms of racial discrimination, anti-Semitism, etc. are sinful and not permissible.
Yet we must have a clear definition of anti-Semitism: bias or hatred against Jews solely for the fact of their Jewish heritage, ethnicity, or religion. (To preface this, I grew up in a predominately Jewish neighborhood in the Chicago suburbs, where many of my friends were Jewish. My Korean mom would make challah bread French toast on the weekends. I have no aminus against Jewish people.)
We must oppose true anti-semitism while not allowing people to abuse the charge of anti-semitism for unrighteous or unconstitutional ends.
Many people (especially in politics) abuse the term anti-semitism to mean:
Any criticism of the State of Israel (even if it's unfair). I wouldn't consider "unfair criticism" of Korea to be necessarily anti-Korean.
Any criticism of outsize Israeli influence in American politics (the American Israel Public Affairs Committe spent over $100M in the 2024 elections, supporting both Republicans and Democrats).
Not holding to dispensational theology, branding covenant theology as "replacement theology" and anti-semitic
Any criticism of industries that have a high proportion of Jewish individuals, even if the criticism is not based on ethnicity.
Any form of sympathy for Palestinians (even if we acknowledge the faults of Palestinian people, terrorism, and poor governance)
Passages of the New Testament, which clearly state that both Jews and Romans (Gentiles) killed Jesus
Evangelizing Jewish people
Any boycott of Israel for any reason whatsoever, whether anti-Semitic or not. 38 states have prohibited the boycott of Israel, wherein hurricane/tornado survivors, etc. must sign pledges of loyalty to Israel in order to receive aid or pay. American citizens are not prohibited from boycotting America in this way.
In fact, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (not passed yet) has an extremely broad definition of anti-semitism, which mandates the IHRA's definition of Anti-Semitism, would prohibit the teaching of certain passages in the New Testament (even if not used for the purpose of instigating hatred against Jews), and criticizing Israel (even if in disturbing ways, this goes against the 1st Amendment). Already, foreign nationals who have criticized Israel in any shape or form (some radical leftists or terrorists-sympathizers, but some NOT) have been deported by the Trump administration.
There have been attempts to make it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment, for American citizens to encourage or participate in boycotts against Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. See Israel Anti-Boycott Act (HR 1697). So, it is not surprising that with the free-flow of information on social media, you have statistics like this: I am against all forms of racism and anti-semitism, but I am also against any abuse of these terms for unethical, unbiblical, or unconstitutional ends.
Q1) Jesus had a very negative posture towards the Jewish elite of his day, should we share a similar negative posture towards contemporary Jewish elites? Or were they uniquely evil and powerful in Christ's day?
Are you opposing people because of the fact that they are Jewish? This is deeply sinful and wrong.
Are you opposing people - whether Jewish, atheist, so-called "Christians", Muslims, Hindus, etc. - for bad influences on society because of their bad influences? This is righteous.
Q2) Puritan William Prynne wrote in 1656 attempting to maintain the expulsion of the jews from England. Is expelling a particularly threatening ethnic group of people ever justified? Or is it biblically unjust to punish the collective based an the actions of individuals?
In general, no. We are not called to punish the collective based on the actions of individuals, even if proportionally a certain group is involved in corruption, crime, etc.We are permitted to restrict immigration coming in though.
Q3) If it is true the jews have oversized influence in the p0rnography industry, Hollywood and Central Banking, should we begin opposing the particular people group that run them? Or should we merely oppose the institution and disregard the ethnicity of its promoters?
At risk of seeming anti-Semitic (I am not!), there is indeed outsized Jewish influence in these industries, mainly due to:
Discrimination against Jews
Ashkenazi Jewish people are generally highly intelligent and creative. Some of my favorite violinists and pianists are Jewish, e.g. Horowitz, Rubenstein, Perlman, Heifetz, etc.
There is a high degree of nepotism within Jewish culture where Jews only hire other Jews. (I am saying this based on the personal experience of my family who knows many people in law and accounting.)
This can be found in many immigrant cultures, especially Indian culture. This is not a justification for being racist against individuals. But, we have to be aware of these things without being racist or uncharitable.
What happens is White people are generally open, tolerant, and fair in hiring. Then ethnic minorities exhibit severe in-group preference that end up transforming industries and form ethnic cliques.
Yet, we oppose the institution as a whole and the individuals that run them, regardless of ethnicity. Even if we criticize rightly (on the basis of sin, not biology), many will still use slurs like "anti-Semitic" or "racist" to shut down conversation.
It is sinful for them to be antisemitic (in the proper definition of the term). No exceptions. To reiterate, I am against all forms of racism and anti-semitism, but I am also against any abuse of these terms for unethical, unbiblical, or unconstitutional ends.While I do not intend to make this discussion about politics, it is inseparable from the questions at hand.
Finally, let us recall Romans 11:18-21:
do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
To reiterate, I am against all forms of racism and anti-semitism, but I am also against any abuse of these terms for unethical, unbiblical, or unconstitutional ends.
Are you equating in any way your'e constitution with ethics and the bible? I'd argue that there are forms of so-called "bigotry" that are righteous, but unconstitutional in the United States of America. Religious tests for office is the main example I can think of.
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
(2Sa. 23:3)
Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.
(Pr. 14:34)
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
(1Co. 6:1)
Yet we must have a clear definition of anti-Semitism: bias or hatred against Jews solely for the fact of their Jewish heritage, ethnicity, or religion.
Any boycott of Israel for any reason whatsoever, whether anti-Semitic or not. 38 states have prohibited the boycott of Israel, wherein hurricane/tornado survivors, etc. must sign pledges of loyalty to Israel in order to receive aid or pay. American citizens are not prohibited from boycotting America in this way.
While I agree that boycotts are not inherently antisemitic, only anti-Israeli, I find it odd that you don't apply the same logic to religion... Being Israeli is still not something one can opt out of very easily. It is jot an idea or a religion, it is a nation/country (depending on definitions) and a government. A body politic is what I think they'd call it on older English.
Antisemitism as defined by whom exactly? And how are you using the word?
The Holocaust Remembrance alliance is one of the working definitions of antisemitism today. They are objectively wrong in the way they define it and are pushing rhetoric to silence the word of God. They are trying to push for legislation to make it a criminal act to criticize Jews in any capacity. This includes in ways such as saying the Jews killed Jesus.
That being said, a true definition of antisemitism is wrong and we should denounce strongly. Such as this one:
To answer and ask more questions of you for more clarity:
Q1. Jesus' criticism of the elites in his day does not mean we can equally criticize the elites in the same way necessarily. What ways are you referring to as being wrong to criticize? Paul criticized the Jews saying they oppose all of mankind. A negative posture towards sinful actions isn't wrong but there might be more to the question you're asking.
Q2. I don't believe that expelling threatening groups of people from society is sinful. Mohammedans for example are uniquely dangerous to western culture and it would be better if they weren't allowed in barring their conversion to Christianity. Unfortunately for us they are doing a better job of the command to be fruitful and multiply.
Q3. We should be against sin, and we should speak against those who practice it and give approval to do so. Romans 1:32.
Q4. We can be thankful for our forefathers contribution to our faith without approving of everything they said.
Are you equating in any way your'e constitution with ethics and the bible? I'd argue that there are forms of so-called "bigotry" that are righteous, but unconstitutional in the United States of America. Religious tests for office is the main example I can think of.
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
(2Sa. 23:3)
Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.
(Pr. 14:34)
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
(1Co. 6:1)
I mean in the context of American politics we are generally bound to the American constitution. It is true that the Bible is a higher (and final) authority that might demand discrimination on the basis of religion or theology in certain affairs. Theology of church and state is quite difficult, I have to admit. What is the equivalent of a "king" in the passage here:
Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear
and celebrate his rule with trembling.
Kiss his son, or he will be angry
and your way will lead to your destruction,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
How much responsibility does the head of state (the President) have, when the body politic in representative democracy can oppose him, when the powers of the government are divided between different branches, and where politics without appealing to individuals (many non-regenerate or not even culturally Christian) is futile? (Not intended to be a discussion here, just some food for thought)
While I agree that boycotts are not inherently antisemitic, only anti-Israeli, I find it odd that you don't apply the same logic to religion... Being Israeli is still not something one can opt out of very easily. It is jot an idea or a religion, it is a nation/country (depending on definitions) and a government. A body politic is what I think they'd call it on older English.
I don't personally boycott Israel or the Jewish people no. But the fundamental ethos of American civil liberties (even during the founding when states had established churches, anti-blasphemy laws, etc.) is that we have the right to boycott whoever we choose for whatever reason we want, unrighteous or righteous. No one is compelled to engage in commerce with any one else. The government may not, in principle, enforce these kinds of laws. (Yes, I know that civil rights laws have impeded free association, etc.) Whether this is biblical or not, that's another question.
And in the context of Iranian politics, they are bound to the Qur'an and other Shia authorities. So?
While the US constitution is nowhere near as bad as the Quran (it does not, for example, explicitly endorse specific heretical views), the principle is the same.
How much responsibility does the head of state (the President) have, when the body politic in representative democracy can oppose him, when the powers of the government are divided between different branches, and where politics without appealing to individuals (many non-regenerate or not even culturally Christian) is futile? (Not intended to be a discussion here, just some food for thought)
The responsibility absolutely lies with every ruler of the earth to kiss the Son, oppose wickedness, promote righteousness and so on. This responsibility lies on all branches of any government. To a certain extent they can tolerate being prevented by others of course (Daniel in Babylon comes to mind - he did not support or do or enforce wickedness, but he didn't refuse to do his job over being prevented from more directly opposing these things), though there is also a time to pull a Jehu. I won't pretend to know when that point comes.
The voter in the booth is a ruler of the earth, in a very limited capacity.
So in the US, the responsibility lies with all levels and branches of government, and those who elect them. How much compromise one can tolerate before flipping the proverbial chess board (resigning/refusing orders/spoiling the ballot/pulling a Jehu) is a diffrent question.
The majority of the young adults I currently see espousing anti-semitic rhetoric (and actions) are incredibly ignorant of the distinctions between the modern nation-state of Israel, ethnic Hebrews, and the Jewish religion (or maybe they just don't care about such distinctions or just don't care to learn about them).
Yes, Jews killed Jesus, but it was fratricide. Jesus was Jewish. He was a Hebrew of Hebrews like S/Paul. Abraham is the father of us all. And if one claims to be a Christian, they are claiming to be truly "of Israel." Maybe we need to begin using the term "Judeo-Christian" more often.
One can dislike the politics and government of the nation-state of Israel - boycott them if you want. One can oppose the Jewish religion for preaching a false gospel (or what is really no gospel at all - what good news is there if you reject the One promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?) - evangelize them when you can. But to persecute anyone for who their parents are or what language they speak cannot be justified by anyone claiming to be a Judeo-Christian - God alone reserves the right to take vengeance on those who reject Him, and He will require more from those who been given more.
Q1) Jesus had a very negative posture towards the Jewish elite of his day, should we share a similar negative posture towards contemporary Jewish elites? Or were they uniquely evil and powerful in Christ's day?
It depends what is entailed by maintaining a "negative posture". Nevertheless, I can say that Christians ought to grieve and oppose any 'elites' in so far as they work to "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men" (Mat. 23:13). And that, of course, according to our place, station, occasion, and circumstances.
Q2) Puritan William Prynne wrote in 1656 attempting to maintain the expulsion of the jews from England. Is expelling a particularly threatening ethnic group of people ever justified? Or is it biblically unjust to punish the collective based an the actions of individuals?
It often appears to be overlooked that these writers (e.g., William Prynne and others) were arguing for a position in relation to a country that was an established "Christian Commonwealth". Hence, John Weemes (1579 - 1636) asks "Whether the Jewes should be tolerated in a Christian Common-wealth or not?"
Granting an established Christian Commonwealth, here are the distinctions that Weemes made in his day in relation to the above question:
But we must put a difference betwixt these miscreants who rail against the Lord Jesus Christ, and blaspheme his name; and those poor wretches who live in blindness yet, but do not rail blasphemously against Christ; those we should pity: First, we should pity them for their fathers cause the Patriarchs. Secondly, we should pity them, because Christ is come of them who is blessed for ever; [T]hirdly, the Oracles of God were committed to them, Rom. 3.2. and the law was the inheritance of Jacob, Deut. 33.4. they were faithful keepers of the same to others, and they were like a lantern who held out the light to others, although they saw not with it themselves. Fourthly, when we Gentiles were out of the Covenant they prayed for us, Cant. 8.8. We have a little sister, what shall we do for her? So when they are out of the Covenant; We have an Elder brother, Luk. 16. what shall we doe for him?
And [L]astly, because of the hope of their conversion, that they shall be graffed in againe, Rom. 11.
Some Christian Common-wealths admit them, but with these Caveats. [Caveat 1] First, that they submit themselves to the positive Laws of the Country wherein they live. [Caveat 2] Secondly, that they rail not against Christ, and be not offensive to the Christians. [Caveat 3] Thirdly, that they be not suffered to marry with the Christians to seduce them. [Caveat 4] Fourthly, that they be not permitted to exhaust Christians with their usury. [Caveat 5] Fiftly, that they be not admitted to any public charge, and that they be distinguished from the rest of the people by some badge or by their apparel:
with these Caveats, sundry Common-wealths have admitted them.
Q3) If it is true the jews have oversized influence in the p0rnography industry, Hollywood and Central Banking, should we begin opposing the particular people group that run them? Or should we merely oppose the institution and disregard the ethnicity of its promoters?
I would argue following Weemes' procedure above: Make the distinction between "the miscreants" and "those poor wretches who live in blindness yet." In so far as "miscreant" Jews may represent a large category of those disseminating what is vile, they "the miscreants" should be publicly shamed as working against general and special revelation, and thereby enemies of the welfare of society and even their own kin.
1) Jesus said nothing about "elites." He exposed specific behaviour that was immoral and unbecoming from people in religious authority.
Jews as "witness-people" is a strong and continuous motif throughout the history of "Christendom." It has as much to do with eschatology as ethics. The times of the Gentiles and the restoration of the Jews are important to this viewpoint. Some claim it is dehumanising to consider the Jews a testimony to God's judgment, but I regard it as the opposite. Judgment testifies to the fact humanity is made in the image of God. As does the promise of mercy.
2) I doubt that off the cuff historical references on tweets are going to uncover the intricacies of past viewpoints. As Alex points out this was a "Christian commonwealth." This is one factor among many. The problem with the "religious right" (probably a gross generalisation in itself) is that it tends to idealise specific aspects of the past without taking into account the big picture. This would be heightened by a medium that allows for short, sharp statements without the need to provide context.
3) This is to be proven, not asserted without evidence. And even if it were true it would only place them in the same category as mafia or triads. One should not characterise a whole population based on its worst examples.
4) We shouldn't make "heroes" of men lest we be led to blindly follow their faults. But it seems more likely in the present age that our values of inclusivity have the tendency to incriminate the Providence of God. I'm not inclined to believe prejudicial caricatures of the past.
We shouldn't make "heroes" of men lest we be led to blindly follow their faults. But it seems more likely in the present age that our values of inclusivity have the tendency to incriminate the Providence of God. I'm not inclined to believe prejudicial caricatures of the past.
I think I already said this, but in regards to Martin Luther, after reading his treatise, he does hold something I would consider an error, but it's a lot less severe than he is accused of.
His main error in my view is his claim that there's no point to reason with or attempt to convert Jews. He gave up too fast (it was a while back since I read this, so take me with a grain of salt). Add to that his colourful rhetoric and you can see why it is so easy to misinterpret and slander him as holding to a much worse error than he did.
At the entrance of our main holocaust museum, next to Nazi flags, Nazi videos, and other shocking artifacts related to the rise of Nazism, there is a text on the wall above all this that reads:
"Do not slay them... scatter them abroad"* ~ Augustine
After one of my visits to the otherwise highly recommended museum, I digged around for the source of the quote. It is from an exposition of Psalm 57 written by Augustine. Augustine there said the psalm gives a prophetic foreshadowing of the fate of the Jews, and argues that they should not be killed, because their scattering is partly to serve as a witness (and I think he exposited other reasons too). The Psalm itself reads:
Slay them not, lest my people forget: scatter them by thy power; and bring them down, O Lord our shield. (Psalm 57:11)
You may notice that this is almost exactly the quote from the museum, but with a slight diffrence in wording. The quote from the museum is a Hebrew psalm, translated by six translators out of each of the 12 tribes of Israel into Greek, and then translated back into Hebrew/English!
Now it is totally possible Augustine was wrong on this interpretation. But the quote in the museum is still a dishonest portrayal that assumes the worst. It gives much darker connotations than what Augustine actually said in context.
One should neither assume the innocence of our forefathers in the faith from sin against my forefathers in the flesh, nor assume their guilt. It is easy to slander, but also easy to too easily dismiss accusations against men we respect.
Yes; and it is correctly applied in the spirit of the New Testament. Rom. 11:9, "And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them." 1 Thess. 2:15-16, "Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."
I would need to see the Luther quotation in context before making a judgment. It doesn't sound good in general but he might have had something more specific in mind.
I would need to see the Luther quotation in context before making a judgment. It doesn't sound good in general but he might have had something more specific in mind.
I had in mind the reference to not converting Jews. Luther's two kingdom view must come into perspective here. Spiritual Kingdom: Only God can convert. Earthly Kingdom: Rulers must restrain evil; hence Jewish false religion must be proceeded against. I doubt critics of Luther would take into account the contours of his theology. It is more likely that they read racial tensions into his words without religious context.
I had in mind the reference to not converting Jews. Luther's two kingdom view must come into perspective here. Spiritual Kingdom: Only God can convert. Earthly Kingdom: Rulers must restrain evil; hence Jewish false religion must be proceeded against. I doubt critics of Luther would take into account the contours of his theology. It is more likely that they read racial tensions into his words without religious context.
It is worth noting that the Jews were not the only ones who were responsible for killing Christ. The Bible says it was a team-up effort among Jew and Gentile. That should temper our thoughts towards the Jews on that point.
"25 who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? 26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. "
There is also a difference between a covenantal responsibility ("his blood be on us and on our children") and personal responsibility. There are no Jews alive today who are personally responsible for his death and so the malice behind that act cannot automatically be attributed to them today.
Jesus called Jewish leaders to repentance, eating at the home of a Pharisee and proclaiming the gospel offer to Nicodemus. This should temper our understanding.
Unlike the man of sin, of whom we can only expect destruction ("destroyed by the brightness of his coming"), the Scriptures present hope for the Jews. That should again temper our thoughts about them. Even in our larger catechism, praying for the kingdom of Satan's destruction is distinct from praying for the Jews to be called.
"Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; "
Finally, something else entirely, there is a tension in the arguments of these people that I have not seen acknowledged yet (not saying they haven't answered it somewhere). On the one hand, they want to say the Jews are uniquely evil. On the other hand, they want to say that IQ is what drives morality. But Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any group by their reckoning.
This is a challenging issue because it does sometimes seem that there are ways in which the Jewish people stand out, and yet we are called to an impartial standard. An analogous example would be the way in which some minority ethnic groups in the US commit disproportionate percentages of certain crimes. But the answer is not racism; rather, it's a fair and consistent application of the existing laws. Likewise, even if some of the accusations against Jews (ethnic, religious, or otherwise) held water, the answer would be not antisemitism but justice.
That grants as an assumed premise that there's truth to some conspiracy theories about Jews; but I only grant that assumed premise for the sake of argument. If the accusations are not true, then there's all the less reason for discrimination.
Moral characterisation is not racial discrimination.
Part of the problem we have to face with the moral collapse in our society is that no consequence can be attributed to one's own moral character. It must be explained by social conditions of some kind. So what used to be a moral critique of culture is now seen as if it targeted one's ethnicity, which is ridiculous.
Why deflect? Either our fathers were sinning, or we’re calling something a sin that God does not. Where is this sin in the Church Fathers or Reformers? How did it go unnoticed for 6000 years?
Why deflect? Either our fathers were sinning, or we’re calling something a sin that God does not. Where is this sin in the Church Fathers or Reformers? How did it go unnoticed for 6000 years?
Some aspects of life involve racial discrimination of some sort
e.g.
- immigration policy (nationality being a proxy for race; Korean immigration law is very racialized, e.g. I have the right to live and work in Korea for 5 years at a time due to my ancestry)
- deciding which neighborhood to live in (you may want to live in a community with similar ethnicities or cultures, even if you aren't "racist" per se towards other ones)
- as a survival tactic in unfamiliar environments (this is often subconscious, and sometimes can be sinful but not always)
- deciding which church to attend (this is less of a race issue as much as it is culture)
Oftentimes race and culture blend so it's hard to say whether it's impermissible racial discrimination or merely cultural preference.
Anyone serious about objectively understanding the church fathers on this topic needs to read History, Religion, and Antisemitism, by Gavin Langmuir. Why?
[Adapted from The Orthodox Information Center]
It must be remembered that the Fathers of the Church view Jews as the adherents of a religion, as a spiritual entity, not merely as a race. And even when they use the word race, they also mean it in a spiritual way, not simply as we use it today. Thus "Judaizers" was an accusation made against non-Jews as well as Jews. And sinners are sometimes called a "race," as are believers. These distinctions are lost on contemporary dilettantes, who think that the curse on the Jewish race applies exclusively to people of a single blood line, rather than to any person who, like the hypocrites of the Jewish establishment of Christ's time, perpetuate anti-Christian sentiments. A "Jew" can, to the fathers, be a Gentile who makes a mockery of Christianity within the Christian Church. It is obvious, then, that the term "Jew" is used in a number of particular ways in Patristic literature. True Christians, in fact, are called, by the Fathers, the "New Israel" and "Israelites," in the sense of remaining loyal to the whole Covenant of God's Providence which the Jewish religious leaders violated and defiled.
One can perhaps compare the use of the term "Jew" by the Fathers to references to "Ethiopians" in the desert Fathers. This term is frequently used to describe dark spirits and demons. That the Ethiopians as a race were, at the same time, Orthodox, and that their race was adorned with Saints (prior to Chalcedon), this was a recognized fact in the Early Church. The word is used in a way that transcends race alone.
Calling any Church Father anti-Semitic on the basis of ostensibly denigrating references to Jews, therefore, is to fall to intellectual and historiographical simple-mindedness. Applying modern sensitivities and terms regarding race to ancient times, as though there were a direct parallel between modern and ancient circumstances, is inane. This abuse of history is usually advocated by unthinking observers who simply cannot function outside the cognitive dimensions of modernity.
With regard to St. John Chrysostom [the church father most often cited, alongside Luther, by Nazi polemicists], there are certainly very harsh condemnations of the Jews in his writings. In the most commonly cited of these, he calls the Jews "pigs" and associates them with drunkenness. Most would never use such language today, at a time when Christian-Jewish relations and the course of history have brought about a different reality than that which St. John confronted. Who in America, today, for example, would refer to "Japs" when speaking of the Japanese? Nonetheless, during WW II this was a perfectly acceptable public expression, on account of the reality of the hostilities which existed, then, between the U.S. and Japan.
Chrysostom's statements are expressions of theological and "ideological," to use a somewhat inappropriate modern term, outrage, not of racism. It speaks for itself that he also praised the Jewish Prophets, those Jews - including the Apostles - who accepted Christianity, and even preached, like all of the Church Fathers, against the wrong or violent treatment of Jews. These things, of course, are seldom mentioned by those who want to make a racist of him. Chrysostom was a great rhetorician. Much of his language reflects the rhetorical devices of his time, not the personal antipathy which a reader jaundiced by the "nicety" of modern discourse might attribute to him. This must be remembered at all times when reading him and other Church Fathers.
