Thank-you
two things come to mind:
*the composition of the audience:
so, for example, was Chrysostom's audience mostly of pagan/gentile cultural origin, or Jewish origin. If the former, participating in Jewish commemorations would imply a different set of concerns (as, unlike the Ethiopians, the understanding vis a vis the relationship of Jewish and Christian practices and their theological underpinnings would be different)
*the political and economic underpinnings of anti-Semitism
for example, the embrace of the Nazi agenda (both internally in Germany and among non Germans) may have used the language of religion but in many instances (alliance) a reaction to scarcity of resources (thus alignment with the Nazis was a matter of goods distribution) and at its core was firmly founded in strong anti-Communist sentiment (on the last point, the percentage of Jewish involvement in the Communist party exceeded the percentage in the total population)
Great points...
And thanks for sharing..
Composition of the audience and knowing the times/setting make a world of difference when it comes to interpretation - and how much grace we either do or don't give to issues.
I've seen others often note that the dynamics with anti-Semitism are understood as such due to others not realizing that people often take on roles intentionally for a greater goal in mind - essentially playing the role of a "villain" due to how those they were speaking against already chose to demonize them first....before they adopted the persona and used it to respond in kind ...
It's why I often have issue whenever Jews speak repeatedly of anti-Semitism in the Church (which has occurred) and yet contrasting themselves as the ones who alone were innocent/being picked on - even though there was EXTENSIVE history where many of the non-believing Jews did horrible things to Gentiles.....specifically BEFORE Christianity even became legal in the Roman Empire (i.e. verbal/physical attacks, betraying other Christians to the Roman Authorities as those in Jewish synagogues sought converts from among the same audience as the Christians, etc.) - with even Jewish Christians being harmed by non-belieiving Jews in the SAME WAY the prophets and other Jewish believers were harmed in the times of the OT and that of Christ - Stephen from Acts 6-7 being amongst the most famous example.
As antagonistic as the Jews were to Rome in relationship, they got WAY more protection than Jewish believers - and Gentile Believers were still wrestling with the thought of where they belonged in the Church.....them having NO protection in the Roman Empire for centuries/being harmed severely.
So when coming out of that into a time where Gentile Christians are a dominant majority and others in Judaism are still trying to wage battles against Christians, the response to what they saw in Judaism was what they felt was necessary. Some, sadly, were simply anti-Semitic in hating all Jews - but language makes a difference....and many don't take time to realize where what seem to be sweeping statements may've been addressed to specific groups with specific attitudes.
The issue, for example, of
John Chrysostom calling Jews "beasts" is intriguing in light of where the Jewish Psalmists noted that unbelievers were precisely that without the Lord (
Psalm 73:21-23 /
Psalm 73 and
Psalm 49:19-20 Psalm 49 ) - but of course, in the hands of someone else, the same language used to describe others in imperfection (when in the hands of a Gentile having lots of issue with Jews) could be used to imply a host of other things that were not present.
In one setting, the language was more than appropriate - but in the mouth of another, it became an issue of it being wrong...with no claims for wanting understanding. In many respects, this is similar to what another noted when showing how odd it is that black people often speak of not liking black people/feeling some are simply ignorant when it comes to cultural critique - with that being valid - and yet if a non-Black person says the same thing, the media and populace are quick to claim the person was "racist"/"hates all blacks!!!" - and if someone like
Bill Cosby steps in saying "Black people, we need to stop making excuses whenever someone says the same thing I've been saying for years and you hate on him just because he's not black!!!!" (as
he has done before on
various occasions )- noting the
necessity for critique even
though others ignore it - they say that person is a sell-out.
If I (as a
Afro-Hispanic/Black man) say "Black people often tend to tear others down", I know my audience when I'm talking......it is evident to me I'm not speaking to EVERY SINGLE Black person in existence (myself included) - and I know my audience understands who I'm talking about since they know me/my biracial history and sentiments (as well as experiences in black culture when seeing many negative occurrences that harmed me/my loved ones)....and for someone to come out saying "G, you hate blacks don't you!!!", I'd say that they didn't know who I was or what I was about.
It'd be the same if I made a comment (as a
Afro-Hispanic/Black man) saying "White people often romanticized the struggles of black people" - in light of things such as slavery, the destruction of the family in Black America, prison-industrial complex and other issues where many whites helped to promote devestation - it'd be apparent to those who know me that I don't say "White people" as meaning EVERY and ALL White people in existence (including those in my own family - great grandfather - or others who are close friends and other whites who don't fit the claim I was giving out to others )......it is specifically geared toward those who do so. But I do know others could come, take what I said and how it seemed to be a general statement - and then proceed to make a war against me as if I'm automatically hateful of whites.
In both instances, the use of language could have a true factor present within it - and yet that language was taken wrongly by others. And in BOTH instances, there've been cases where other factors may've wanted to use the potential of misunderstanding in language to further their own ends
The same dynamic could easily be present with the Early Church in the use of language - which, as you noted earlier, can be used for GOOD or BAD depending on who is doing the talking. Some things John noted are unfortunate - and yet others DON'T shock me since I see where the prophets often said FAR worse (from Ezekiel in
Ezekiel 16 or
Ezekiel 23 to
Hosea 3 and many others)....with the purpose being to point back to God and making a strong point that bring others back.
The language used by the man may've indicated a heart of not being for the Jewish people as a WHOLE (which would be off in light of what the Church has said on the Jews who are in Christ and God's heart to see non-believing Jews saved) - and yet the language may've been intentionally strong to match strong sentiments given by non-saved Jews to both believing Jews and believing Gentiles....and the language may've been made within a competition mindset with Judaism (in light of how others have noted that in the
Roman Empire, Christianity had become a badge of a community, rather than the means of salvation and thus Chrysostom was merely defending the “turf” of the group who had elected him their bishop)....
Or it may've simply been a matter of using the basis in the OT for HARSH language toward unbelievers in an incomplete mindset of how the Lord saw the Jewish people - an action that is both instructive and yet tragic at the same time when seeing what it led to.....More was shared in
In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christiantiy on Page 263
There was an interesting book I came across that seemed to point out the political aspect of things which many don't consider when not realizing the competition that Judaism and Christianity had with one another in the Roman Empire - before Christianity became legal - and that impacted the language many saw as anti-Semitic.....as seen in the book
The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism: From Ancient Times to the Present Day
Not many seem to want to deal with where many of the Church Fathers utilized styles, ideas/concepts and other methods that were developed amongst the Jews - and many actually praised the Jewish people repeatedly - and thus, we have to be complete if we're going to deal with history. Things that are complicated issues cannot always be simplified into a "He said, She said....they're wrong, I'm Right - I know their HEARTS/WHAT THEY WERE THINKING!!!" mindset. Was John wrong on certain things? I believe so - but
I also am thankful for many things he did...and I dare not make a claim as to his motives nor fail to do what the Word says when it comes to judgment without mercy (
James 2:12-14 /
James 2 ) since NO ONE if flawless in the history of the Body of Christ (this also including the Jewish people - many of whom had Anti-Gentile sentiment in the same way others detest Anti-Semitism or Philo-Semitism). To me,
it's no different than a black slave not appreciating many of the things done by other Reformers from George Whitfield to Jonathan Edwards and others who condoned slavery/helped in promoting oppression of others as well as racism - and yet they still were appreciated/celebrated in the great works they contributed to mankind and other acts they did to help others - even if their other actions did cause others to have revolutions of their own in response (as shared in #
64 ). You don't avoid
acknowledging where wrong occurred and
noting inconsistency - but We give grace as we're given grace...
We are ALL patients in God's Hospital - incomplete and in need of His grace...and if other Jewish believers are able to both grieve and yet appreciate others such as St. John of Chrysostom (more
here and
here), who are we to not do the same?
For a good review on the issue, one of the best places I could think of was the following:
As
another wisely noted best:
Church and Synagogue were locked in a battle for men’s souls, since the Synagogue was actively denying the Messiahship of Jesus and the validity of the Christian Faith, and this Judaism was an attractive faith to many of John’s parishioners. John Chrysostom’s words about “the Jews” have to be read in this context. That is, his real target was not so much the Jews themselves as the Judaizers—those in his flock who were tempted to drift into Judaism.......St. John’s sermons, valuable as they are to us now, were heard very differently by their original audiences.
And As you said best earlier:
To note, Chrysostom also lauds Jews - the OT figures, the Maccabees, etc. - ie, the harsh statements he makes, and I am uncomfortable with his language, need to be investigated, but this must be done contextually noting both the other writings re: Jewish figures and the "stakes" involved - namely the risk of apostasy.
As for promulgating anti-semitism; the NT has also been cited as the justification for anti-Semitic (along with the OT for pro-slavery and racist) actions and views. In short, any material (good or bad) can be used as justification for debased actions and views or positive actions and views.
And unless I am mistaken, the only action re: this matter that Chrysostom admonished on this matter was to be applied to the self (ie for the Christians addressed to quit commemorating the unfulfilled Festival form) he did not exhort to take action against the Jews.
And in the same way, practices that were incomplete in the OT (because they were done in preview of who the Messiah was/what He'd do) don't cease to be valuable simply because of His arrival and what the Church went on to do......NO more than artifacts/relics (part of the heritage of a culture with high meaning) in a museum have to be destroyed because society has advanced past them. You recognize the past and appreciate the future it set up for you..
