On the Alleged Antisemitism of St John Chrysostom

[Jezz]

AW, you surely do have a way of going on long rants without actually engaging the topic.

Three times in this thread I have asked for your comments on Galatians 5:12, where St Paul says he wishes that the Judaisers would emasculate themselves.

Twice in this thread I have asked for your comments on Matthew 23 where Christ calls the Pharisees "a brood of vipers".

Each time, you have simply ignored these comments.

So I want to know: What is your opinion about St Paul's comments in Galatians 5:12? Is it "hate speech"?

In the interest of resolving this debate, I will simply accept your explanation at face value, but also add my brief thoughts. First, obviously I recognize the difference between bloodline and religion.

So you say. But you continually attempt to confuse the issue by blurring the distinction between the two. You have done so in this very post.

I use the term antisemitic because it is the common term used here in the US for dislike or hatred of Jewish people (notwithstanding it is an inappropriate term technically speaking). I understand Semites are not only Jews but essentially Arabs as well.

The term is inappropriate, period, and it ought not to be used, period. Those who use it use it precisely because they wish to blur the distinction between bloodline and race.

"Everyone else was doing it" is not an excuse that ever worked with my mother at least - I'd be disappointed if you felt that it was an acceptable excuse.

OK, moving on to the "substantive" point (and away from the semantics of terminology).

Indeed those who preach a false Gospel will face condemnation because one can do no greater harm then to misrepresent the word of God. However, the condemnation is for God to reckon not us.

No. St Paul said quite clearly in 1 Cor 6 that the saints will have a part in judging the world. It is not left to God.

God will not only deal with false teachings (and its proponents) but He will also right the wrong (and ensure His word is preserved in tact). I would add as a side note that we saw God do this by anointing the Magisterial Reformers as the catalyst for the reformation (not to diverge but this is what I believe to be true).

However, the word "hate" should not be in the Christian vocabulary (accept to know how NOT to think much less act).

You're again blurring the distinction between bloodline and religion. One ought not to hate a bloodline. However, the Bible quite clearly tells us that there is nothing more important than to hate false religion.

I have many Catholic friends, who would strongly critique your choice of words in this regard.

Good for them. I have many friends who would strongly critique your critiques.

Now that we have that rather pointless interlude out the way, perhaps you could actually get on with articulating some of these critiques, instead of relying on argument by outrage.

Hating Judaism has only served to harden Jews further, and push them further from the truth.

And what has loving Judaism and saying nice things about it done to bring people closer to the truth?

Martin Luther thought initially that once Catholicism was dispensed with (in Saxony at least) the Jews would be more amenable to conversion. However, he was wrong, because he failed to understand that it is God who gives us faith (even though on paper he understood this quite well, it apparently eluded him in practice).

I don't really care as I don't see how this is relevant to the topic. How does this make St John Chrysostom more or less "anti-semitic"?

We are to pray for all to come to knowledge of the truth, however, this is a request we make to God (because only God can save us, we cannot save ourselves). This makes sense after all because who do we pray to when we make such a request? Obviously it is God (sadly few understand the simple logic of this aspect of Christian theology).

Of course we are. I fail to see what this has to do with St Chrysostom or whether he was anti-semitic. Please keep your discussion on-topic.

We have two choices. We can either hate those who will not come to the truth, or we can meet their stiff-necks with love. A love that is kind at first, only to turn to hatred when others do not accept the truth is not true love. It is a superficial love, in fact it was never really love at all.

There is a third choice: You can love those who have not/will not come to the truth, and hate the deceptions to which they cling and which prevent them from coming. Indeed, love for them actually demands that you hate the deceptions that keep them from the truth. If you love heroin addicts, then you must hate heroin.

Yes, a love that is kind at first, only to turn to hatred later is not true love. I certainly agree with that. You're attacking a strawman.

I agree that Christianity does not permit us to hate people. But you haven't shown us that we are forbidden from hating other religions. I don't see anything in Christianity that forbids us from hating false teachings of any kind - indeed, the reactions of St Paul and our Lord Himself towards false teachers are extremely harsh - not out of hatred towards the people, but hatred of their false teachings and of what they had done to people.

Do you think that God destroyed the Jewish temple because He loved Judaism?

[snip]

If the Catholic Churches insist on declaring men saints (inferring that somehow they attained a level of righteousness that is above the rest of us, which in itself is problematic ... but that's another story) then at least point to their faults as well as their good works, as an example for us all.

You are insinuating that we do not point out their faults. This is incorrect. For example, a saint whose mistakes we prominently point out is St Augustine.

We are quite happy to admit when our saints have faults. I would be quite happy to admit that St John Chrysostom himself had a fault here. This has nothing to do with a failure to admit faults. The only one here who seems incapable of admitting a fault is you. I could (as you did, which I snipped) go on with a long, rambling psychoanalysis of what causes you to be incapable of admitting this, but I will spare our readers from the speculation and simply stick to the facts.

Speaking of which - what do you have to say about St Paul's desire to see the Judaisers in Galatia castrate themselves?

[bridgeforsale]

AW, you surely do have a way of going on long rants without actually engaging the topic.

Three times in this thread I have asked for your comments on Galatians 5:12, where St Paul says he wishes that the Judaisers would emasculate themselves.

Twice in this thread I have asked for your comments on Matthew 23 where Christ calls the Pharisees "a brood of vipers".

Each time, you have simply ignored these comments.

So I want to know: What is your opinion about St Paul's comments in Galatians 5:12? Is it "hate speech"?

Paul was referring to Christians in Galatians 5:12, whether they were Jewish converts or not, who were calling for circumcision (or a return to the Levitical ritualistic code). This was not tantamount to saying it is the duty of all Christians to hate Jews.

The reference to the Pharisees by Jesus also had nothing in common with the statements made by John Chrysostom. The reason I ignored these ludicrous insinuations is because they weren't worth responding to.

The term is inappropriate, period, and it ought not to be used, period. Those who use it use it precisely because they wish to blur the distinction between bloodline and race.

I'm thinking back to the last time I ever heard anyone express dismay over application of the term antisemitic to bigotry against Jews & I think it was Louis Farrakhan. So whatever ....

And what has loving Judaism and saying nice things about it done to bring people closer to the truth?


I don't really care as I don't see how this is relevant to the topic. How does this make St John Chrysostom more or less "anti-semitic"?

John Chrysostom was a Jew hater .... but I see why this eludes you?

There is a third choice: You can love those who have not/will not come to the truth, and hate the deceptions to which they cling and which prevent them from coming. Indeed, love for them actually demands that you hate the deceptions that keep them from the truth. If you love heroin addicts, then you must hate heroin.

and you're going to tell me this is what Chrysostom really meant. I mean you guys will just say anything ..... geesh

The point is Christians are supposed to transcend hating anyone. Obviously we're not perfect, but that doesn't mean we call something bad ... good? You're trying to turn this around for you (when there's no turning this around) rather than simply admit Chrysostom hated Jews. It wasn't just one isolated slip of the tongue.

I'm not upset because of the rantings of some ancient church father, I'm upset that these days there's people who actually agree with him.

You then say that God hates Jews & even accuse me (in a backhanded way) of emotive psycho babble or whatever (frankly I don't care what you were trying to deflect onto me). You're not even consistent with your own theology of omnibenevolence (which while I agree with, I also understand the doctrine of predestination).

Yes the temple was destroyed, and Jesus foretold of its destruction. In fact we can reach back to Jeremiah who also foretold it in so many words. The idea of the atonement ritual (and alter centered worship) was abolished ... yet you guys really don't even understand that (given all your rituals & the idea that you actually eat flesh). We're a Spirit led people, this is what Paul was saying. It's sort of a weird irony how things have turned out.

I'll tell you flat out why I think as I do. I believe what Paul said at Romans 11:25-31 indicates God did not forsake the Jewish people. I'm not a dispensationalist; accept for agreeing with them on that particular point. Paul's words are clear enough:

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in (Romans 11:25).

Perhaps you might spend some time reflecting on Romans 11?

[bridgeforsale]

Dang .... I guess I let it rip again

Leave the poor Jews alone -- that's what I say. They're not going to convert & they know all about Christianity (as it was destined to be I suppose). We're supposed to be a happy bunch ... not a bunch of grinchy scrooges. You can try and explain the truth if given the opportunity & if they listen they listen, if they don't they don't. If for whatever reason God doesn't soften their hearts it's not for us to question. We cannot scoff at people. We are really only permitted to rebuke each other. That's the word ......

I'm certainly no better. I'm in the army reserves, joined shortly after we got into this whole mess in the mid east (actually I reenlisted, I was active duty years earlier before college). For the longest time all I wanted to do was shove a bullet into a terrorists chest (frankly, I'm still in the army and I may very well have to one of these days, though now I'd rather not kill anyone .... if I must I will). I'm a New Yorker, and knew some people who were lost on 9/11. Not close close people, but I knew some people who were in the towers. Wasn't much Christian love in my heart after we got wacked that day. If I ever had a chance at Usama I'd kill him in heart beat. I'm far from the caliber of soldier who would likely have such an opportunity (but Usama's pretty old .... I'm pretty sure I could kill him if I had the chance ).

I did deploy but not exactly as a foot soldier so I didn't kill anyone; I just inhaled a bunch of sand.

Like the vertically aligned lol smilies? Cool huh!!!

[JonLanceBarker]

Leave the poor Jews alone -- that's what I say. They're not going to convert & they know all about Christianity (as it was destined to be I suppose).

Hmm...are you advocating the leaving off of evangelizing because of your theological preconceptions?

[bridgeforsale]

Hmm...are you advocating the leaving off of evangelizing because of your theological preconceptions?

Christians always evangelize. However, there's a way to do this in love and a way not to do this in love. We are supposed to be a beacon of light (in so many words); in other words yes we are the chosen people of God. We can neither hide that fact nor should we. However, no one on earth should fear Christians. In fact, to the contrary, we should the people others (including non-Christians) trust above everyone else. By providing this witness to the world we do more to evangelize then anything else we could do.

Just to clarify, I am not a dispensationalist. Just because I do not necessarily think God is finished with the Jewish people (to paraphrase the words of Paul) I also acknowledge no one (and I mean no one) can see the Father without going through the Son. In other words, only by faith in Christ will anyone be saved ... period (in fact I would argue dispensationalism in many ways is a warped theological system).

There is only one people of God, and those who accept Christ are it. However, we can only harden with hate, and we can only soften with love.

In a way this is why a proper understanding of total depravity is such a necessary foundational understanding in Christianity. If we think that we ourselves can excel in the flesh, and some personal characteristic about ourselves makes us more worthy before God as compared to other people, how can we really love others? We will only judge others and boast about ourselves.

AW

[JonLanceBarker]

AW, I challenge you to find anything in Jezz's posts which disagrees with the above. Anything at all. (Aside from the total depravity bit, of course.)

[bridgeforsale]

AW, I challenge you to find anything in Jezz's posts which disagrees with the above. Anything at all. (Aside from the total depravity bit, of course.)

You mean where he agreed with Chrysostom who said it's every Christians duty to hate Jews (or it's essential that every Christian hate Jews)? That is clearly inconsistent with what I wrote above.

I haven't heard anyone yet say the saint was wrong for writing those words? This whole thread was premised on Chrysostom's bigotry toward Jews. It is clear to any reasonable reader (given his words) that Chrysostom did in fact hate Jews. Yet Jezz has continued to act as his apologist and deflect from the substantive point with semantics over terminology (and yes I've been critical of that).

I've never even sought to use those words as a basis for debunking the saints theology (since I acknowledge that every man is a sinner, I don't engage in the tactic of judging a man by the worse or dumbest thing he's ever said or done). I'm sure by looking at the "whole person," Chrysostom was remarkable in many ways (or at least I assume, since Catholics made him into a saint). I simply believe that goodness done in faith (whether it be good works or good behavior) is God working through us; and not ourselves. This is what I mean when I say Christians are a Spirit led people, and we're not led by our flesh (since our flesh is always opposed to God). Essentially, this is the Gospel message (which Paul profoundly & clearly I might add, emphasized).

[JonLanceBarker]

You mean where he agreed with Chrysostom who said it's every Christians duty to hate Jews (or it's essential that every Christian hate Jews)? That is clearly inconsistent with what I wrote above.

Pay attention to what other people write, AW.

There is a third choice: You can love those who have not/will not come to the truth, and hate the deceptions to which they cling and which prevent them from coming. Indeed, love for them actually demands that you hate the deceptions that keep them from the truth. If you love heroin addicts, then you must hate heroin.

Yes, a love that is kind at first, only to turn to hatred later is not true love. I certainly agree with that. You're attacking a strawman.

I agree that Christianity does not permit us to hate people. But you haven't shown us that we are forbidden from hating other religions. I don't see anything in Christianity that forbids us from hating false teachings of any kind - indeed, the reactions of St Paul and our Lord Himself towards false teachers are extremely harsh - not out of hatred towards the people, but hatred of their false teachings and of what they had done to people.

Do you think that God destroyed the Jewish temple because He loved Judaism?

Out of what twisted kind of tunnel vision do you get "Jezz hates Jews?"

I haven't heard anyone yet say the saint was wrong for writing those words? This whole thread was premised on Chrysostom's bigotry toward Jews. It is clear to any reasonable reader (given his words) that Chrysostom did in fact hate Jews. Yet Jezz has continued to act as his apologist and deflect from the substantive point with semantics over terminology (and yes I've been critical of that).

It is quite clear to me that you have yet to see the distinction between hating the Jews as a religious group and hating persons who are Jews. What evidence do you have that St. John is guilty of the latter?

[One Bad Pig]

AW, do you have links for St. John Chrysostom's quotes in context?

[bridgeforsale]

It is quite clear to me that you have yet to see the distinction between hating the Jews as a religious group and hating persons who are Jews. What evidence do you have that St. John is guilty of the latter?

My evidence is the many quotes I've provided. I'll provide some additional quotes, some may be redundant (with links and sources, since One Bad Pig has requested them):

"The Jews sacrifice their children to Satan....they are worse than wild beasts. The synagogue is a brothel, a den of scoundrels, the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults, a criminal assembly of Jews, a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, a gulf and abyss of perdition."

---"Homilies Against the Jews" in Patrologia Graeca (Paris: Garnier, 1857-1866)

"I hate the Jews because they violate the Law. I hate the synagogue because it has the Law and the prophets. It is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews."

---"Homilies Against the Jews" in Patrologia Graeca (Paris: Garnier, 1857-1866)

"The Jews have fallen into a condition lower than the vilest animal. Debauchery and drunkenness have brought them to the level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only one thing: to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill, and beat each other up like stage villains and coachmen."

---"Homilies Against the Jews" in Patrologia Graeca (Paris: Garnier, 1857-1866)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ch...m#Antisemitism

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sourc...tom-jews6.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sourc...ws6-react.html

The Fordham site (a Catholic university btw) provides an interesting discourse on Chrysostom's remarks against the Jews. The site author correctly notes the following, and I quote:

"I am quite willing to add your comments to the file in question, although I shall not remove Parkes' comments. You really need to consider, however, that even your summary of chapter six, does not allow the benign [advocacy?] interpretation you give to Chrysostom."

You can follow the link & copy these words (and do a word search). The site author here responds to an apologist for Chrysostom (whose remarks he did include, in the section preceding the quote I refer to). The apologist (Halsall) states: "He attacks the Jews, using a standard method of classical rhetoricians" (you can search these words and see the rest of his remarks and the context).

I strongly agree with the site author. The EOC also has a site out there, which tries to frame the remarks made by Chrysostom in a benign way (that Jezz provided a link to earlier in this thread). It's baloney. The man hated Jews, and in fact stated "I hate the Jews." What more really needs to be said?

Patrologia Graeca is a volume that includes the writings of all the early church fathers (however, it cannot be sourced free of charge as far as I can tell). At any rate there's enough sources out there affirming these quotes (including of course the ones I provided). You can copy and paste these anti-Jewish remarks into Google or Yahoo and you will find dozens of sites affirming that Chrysostom indeed made each of them (and many more against Jews .... I can't reasonably fit them all in one post). I'm sure you'll find plenty of sites offering post hoc explanations for them as well (to give you some ammunition to continue in your stubborn refusal to simply concede the obvious).

I have no problem with ascribing fault to Luther for his bigoted remarks against Jews; even though I agree with many elements of his theology. It's bizarre that you guys seem incapable of doing the same, when indeed Chrysostom was almost equally harsh (and frankly later church fathers were just as harsh as Luther .... but I suppose that's another topic). As far as context, the links I included here provide the entire homilies in question (the translation between the Patrologia Graeca and other texts seem slightly different, but the remarks made by the saint are in all material aspects the same). These remarks cannot be contextualized in a benign way (not reasonably anyway). Frankly, it's borderline delusional to even try. Face it, Chrysostom hated Jews and had no problem admitting his bigotry in no uncertain terms. At least he was honest (more than I can say for his apologists).

To frame it better (so perhaps it might sink in). I believe Catholic theology is wrong. Now that's how you say I don't like or disagree with what you believe to be false teachings. In fact I go as far as believing that without a proper understanding of total depravity a person really cannot understand the fundamental basics of Christian theology, however, both the RCC and EOC deny total depravity. However, does this mean I hate Catholics? No .... and so much is clear. Now if I were to say I hate Catholics what would be your response? You would call me an anti-Catholic bigot right? What if I were to invent a lie and say Catholics sacrifice their children to Satan? Well, John Chrysostom said all these things against the Jews ..... I mean duh? Frankly, I don't even hate Catholic theology. It's wrong, I can't say I like it, and I do think it does violence to Christian doctrine ... but hate? I don't "hate" anything.

[One Bad Pig]

Thanks for the link, AW. I'll grant you that Chrysostom's rhetoric is harsh (yes, it is rhetoric), but AFAICT from reading the first homily his rhetoric against the Jews is no stronger than what he would use against Christians fallen into error. I'll read the others as I have time to do so.

[bridgeforsale]

Rhetoric or not, it's hateful all the same; and it springs from the fallacious idea that we can save ourselves. Only God can save, and He only saves those He chooses to save. God doesn't like the destruction of anyone ... but sadly it had to be this way if anyone was to be saved at all. Since I know I'm no more or less depraved than anyone else in the eyes of God, it's easy for me not to judge others. This is what those like the Pharisees could not understand.

I hope everyone comes to knowledge of the truth, because I cannot know who God elected (besides myself). However, I know that God even uses evil for the greater good & I know if I rely on God I can walk through the valley of the shadow of death & fear nothing. So I need fear no man (and fear is always the basis for hate). This is the formula for love; and it's the message of Christ and his apostles. I know it is my duty to love even those who hate me. This what Chrysostom should have preaching, not that it's every Christians duty to hate the Jews. This is all I'm really trying to say.

[One Bad Pig]

Rhetoric or whatever, it's hateful all the same; and it springs from the fallacious idea that we can save ourselves.

:bp:

St. John Chrysostom was no Pelagian. Why do you keep trying to divert this thread to other topics?

[bridgeforsale]

:bp:

St. John Chrysostom was no Pelagian. Why do you keep trying to divert this thread to other topics?

First, I'm not trying to divert the thread. I've already shown that Chrysostom hated Jews (not too hard since he outright admitted it). I'm simply trying to explain why I think he thought as he did.

I don't know whether or not he was a Pelagian .... but it's not really Pelagians who believe in a universal prevenient grace or the idea that all men are equally enabled by God to believe in Christ (Pelagians believed that we do not require divine assistance to have faith). Universal prevenient grace is a Catholic and Arminian teaching (which I have come to reject). If, after all, one believes that God enabled all to come to Him, then it's easy to hate others for rejecting Christ. Similarly, it's easy to boast of ourselves and our own wisdom in making the right choice.

And JLB ... for the record I do not think that Jezz hates Jews per se. I understand he thinks that he can hate Judaism without hating Jews. I simply understand it's impossible to delineate and parcel hatred in such a way. Moreover, Chrysostom stated directly he hates Jews. It doesn't matter what his reasoning was. I go under the assumption that men mean what they say, especially when they make public pronouncements or publish writings & they know that they're well esteemed members of a large community. Again, if this was an oft comment made in a bought of anger it would be one thing; but they weren't.

A note, the Lutheran Church repudiates Luther's antisemitic comments in their official Synods. I even think the RCC has apologized for its past antisemitism (I don't know if the EOC followed suit ..... I guess not given that everyone here is EOC).

[JonLanceBarker]

First, I'm not trying to divert the thread. I've already shown that Chrysostom hated Jews (not too hard since he outright admitted it). I'm simply trying to explain why I think he thought as he did.

Actually, he makes that quite clear on his own:

St. John Chrysostom: Adversus Judaeos, Homily I, V: 2, 3, 4, 7

Since there are some who think of the synagogue as a holy place, I must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the synagogue and abhor it. They have the prophets but not believe them; they read the sacred writings but reject their witness-and this is a mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage... Tell me this. If you were to see a venerable man, illustrious and renowned, dragged off into a tavern or den of robbers; if you were to see him outraged, beaten, and subjected there to the worst violence, would you have held that tavern or den in high esteem because that great and esteemed man had been inside it while undergoing that violent treatment? I think not. Rather, for this very reason you would have hated and abhorred the place...For they brought the books of Moses and the prophets along with them into the synagogue, not to honor them but to outrage them with dishonor. When they say that Moses and the prophets knew not Christ and said nothing about his coming, what greater outrage could they do to those holy men than to accuse them of failing to recognize their Master, than to say that those saintly prophets are partners of their impiety? And so it is that we must hate both them and their synagogue all the more because of their offensive treatment of those holy men...The harm they bring to our weaker brothers is not slight; they offer no slight excuse to sustain to the folly of the Jews. For when they see that you, who worship the Christ whom they crucified, are reverently following their rituals, how can they fail to think that the rites they have performed are the best and that our ceremonies are worthless? For after you worship and adore at our mysteries, you run to the very men who destroy our rites. Paul said: "If a man sees you that have knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols"? And let me say: If a man sees you that have knowledge come into the synagogue and participate in the festival of the Trumpets, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to admire what the Jews do? He who falls not only pays the penalty for his own fall, but he is also punished because he trips others as well. But the man who has stood firm is rewarded not only because of his own virtue but people admire him for leading others to desire the same things.

© source where applicable

If St. John is anti-Semitic, then so is the Bible. And I do not say this out of any special loyalty to saints, else I would have to deny St. Augustine along with his errors. I simply do not see that St. John is wrong here, and I do not appreciate false accusations.