I am going to quote one of my favorite Psalm’s here, 130, “Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O Lord …. thankfully at the end we have verse 8, “And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.” And of course here we have not only personal trial and suffering, but national suffering, really the burden of which the Psalmist feels intensely. ‘Israel is in danger of being overwhelmed by a sea of trouble.’ But let us not forget verse 7! “Let Israel hope in the Lord (Jehovah): For with the Lord (Jehovah) there is mercy, And with HIM is plenteous redemption.” Here are both the “covenant” people of chosen Jews and Gentiles. But in reality, GOD first chose “Israel”, the covenant people of God, whom God has begun the Salvation History of God, in ‘Christ Jesus’! (Rom. 9: 4-5 ; 15: 8-9, etc.)
Btw, sadly here we should note the Homilies (Adversus Judaeos) of John Chrysostom toward the Jews, and what he believed were Judaizing Christians. This is the worst of “supersessionism” in my opinion!
Fr. Robert, Not exactly sure what Israel and supersessionism has to do with this quote. Are you referring to an inner-anti-semitism that may afflict some Christians and which needs to be combatted?
Sadly, Christendom’s history with the Jewish people after Constantine is tragic indeed. And the thoughts of many a Christian thinker have been unkind at the least. Whether John Chrysostom or Martin Luther. I pray Christians today have a fuller understanding of the Jewish people and the relationship of their faith with Christ’s Church. First place to start likely is Paul’s words in Romans
It is actually quite easy to see! For we Gentile Christians simply but profoundly come into “Israel’s” Covenant and somewhat “covenants”, and the great Salvation History of God In Christ! (Eph. 2: 12)
Here’s a piece from the wiki on Chrysostom and his treatment of the Jews, etc. Note even at the end, “supersessionalism” is mentioned and connected!
Homilies on Jews and Judaizing Christians
Main article: Adversus Judaeos
During his first two years as a presbyter in Antioch (386-387), John denounced Jews and Judaizing Christians in a series of eight homilies delivered to Christians in his congregation who were taking part in Jewish festivals and other Jewish observances. It is disputed whether the main target were specifically Judaizers or Jews in general. His homilies were expressed in the conventional manner, utilizing the uncompromising rhetorical form known as the psogos (Greek: blame).
One of the purposes of these homilies was to prevent Christians from participating in Jewish customs, and thus prevent the perceived erosion of Chrysostom’s flock. In his homilies, John criticized those “Judaizing Christians”, who were participating in Jewish festivals and taking part in other Jewish observances, such as the shabbat, submitted to circumcision and made pilgrimage to Jewish holy places. John claimed that on the shabbats and Jewish festivals synagogues were full of Christians, especially women, who loved the solemnity of the Jewish liturgy, enjoyed listening to the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, and applauded famous preachers in accordance with the contemporary custom. A more recent theory is that he instead tried to persuade Jewish Christians, who for centuries had kept connections with Jews and Judaism, to choose between Judaism and Christianity.
In Greek the homilies are called Kata Ioudaiōn (Κατὰ Ιουδαίων), which is translated as Adversus Judaeos in Latin and Against the Jews in English. The original Benedictine editor of the homilies, Bernard de Montfaucon, gives the following footnote to the title: “A discourse against the Jews; but it was delivered against those who were Judaizing and keeping the fasts with them [the Jews].”
According to Patristics’ scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late 4th century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an “anti-Semite” is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record. That does not, however, prevent one from claiming that Chrysostom’s theology was a form of Anti-Jewish supersessionism, or that his rhetoric was not Anti-Judaism.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.