The Role of Christian Theology in the History of Anti-Jewish Thought

A Christian Day of Reflection:

John August Schumacher

Copyright 2013 John August Schumacher All rights reserved. www.johnaugustschumacher.com www.facebook.com/johnaugustschumacher www.amazon.com/author/johnaugustschumacher

CONTENTS
INSPIRATION: YOM KIPPUR .........................................................................6 INITIAL THOUGHTS .......................................................................................8 CHRISTIANS AND JEWS ................................................................................ 8 THE TEMPLE DESTROYED: A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE ................................................... 8 THE TEMPLE DESTROYED: A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE .............................................. 9 THE TIDE TURNS: A CHRISTIANIZED EMPIRE........................................................... 9 RELIGION AND ETHNICITY: THE BLEND OF ANTI-JEWISH RHETORIC ........................... 10 PROPHECY AND CHRISTIAN SUPERSESSIONISM ...................................................... 10 DEFINITIONS: ANTI-SEMITISM, ANTI-JUDAISM, ANTI-JEWISH.................................. 12 JUSTINS BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 13 JUSTINS PRESUPPOSITIONS ....................................................................... 15 PRESUPPOSITION #1: THE LOGOS AS DIVINE AGENT .............................................. 15 THE LOGOS AS HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLE.......................................................... 17 PRESUPPOSITION #2: THE MOSAIC LAW AS PROSCRIPTION FOR JEWISH SIN ............... 19 Justin on the Mosaic Law (Dial. 11) ....................................................... 19 Justin on Jewish Obstinacy (Dial. 12) ..................................................... 19 Circumcision as a Mark for Divine Punishment (Dial. 16) ...................... 20 Justin on Gradual Increase of the Law In Response to Increasing Jewish Sin (Dial. 92) .......................................................................................... 21 Justin on Jewish Obstinacy (Dial. 93) ..................................................... 21

Justin on Jewish persecution of Christians (Dial. 17), quoting Isaiah 52:5 (LXX) .......................................................................................................22 Justin on Roman Persecution| As Jewish Conspiracy (Dial. 96) ..........22 PRESUPPOSITION #3: JUDAISM AND THE NEW ISRAEL .........................................23 Justin on Jewish Conversions (Dial. 39) ..................................................24 FINAL THOUGHTS ...................................................................................... 25 THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT ..................................25 FROM ANTIOCH TO AUSCHWITZ .........................................................................25 A BIBLICAL ANSWER TO THE JEWISH QUESTION .................................................28

FORWARD
The material contained herein is a synopsis of research done on the role Christian theology has played in the history of anti-Jewish thought. The accompanying PowerPoint slides were used as part of a presentation in 2003 entitled A Christian Day of Reflection. The date chosen was the eve of Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement. Much has been written over the years about the link between Christian animosity toward Jews (so-called anti-Judaism, or a theological dispute) and anti-Semitism, a racial prejudice against Jews. My contention is that these terms should be conflated; details of this argument are included later. The main thesis of my work involves a Christian philosopher of the 2nd century named Justin. (Martyr is often appended to Justins name, but is not a surname. Rather, it is indicative of the violent manner of his death.) Justins belief in Biblical prophecy caused him to write extensively on the subject. Among his works is the Dialogue with Trypho, purporting to record conversations between Justin and a Jew (perhaps a rabbi) named Trypho. Justins proclamation includes an interpretation of Genesis 49:10 whereby Scripture itself foretold that the Jewish people would be rejected by God in favor of the Christian church, because the Jews refused to accept that Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah.

INSPIRATION: YOM KIPPUR

Monday, October 6, 2003 marks the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, meaning Day of Atonement. On this day, Jews around the world cease all work. Observance of Yom Kippur actually begins at sundown the evening before, and is marked by fasting (abstaining even from water); much of the day is spent at the synagogue, where prayers are offered in an elaborate liturgy that dates back centuries. As instituted by Leviticus 23:26ff, Yom Kippur as a last chance for repentance and atonement for sins against God. Sins committed against ones neighbors are not counted; reconciliation for these sins is to be sought prior to Yom Kippur. As part of the lengthy liturgy, a communal confessions are offered to God, along with petitions for forgiveness. Perhaps the most serious sin to be confessed on Yom Kippur is the lashon hara, or evil tonguethat is, abusive speech or slander against ones neighbor. The traditional notion of bearing false witness is only part of what this commandment prohibits. All forms of talebearing are forbidden, whether these are positive or negative, regardless of whether the information is accurate, and even if the story is only implied or suggested, rather than explicitly repeated. One might note that this day is to be called a day of reflection, not atonement. Christians believe that atonement for all sins has already been made by the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. But this also means that we have no excuse. To borrow a phrase from

A Christian Day of Reflection Martin Luther, who spoke of the freedom of a Christian, because we are already by Gods grace, we are freed to do good works on the behalf of the neighbor. Furthermore, the fact that Christ has atoned for our sins against God means that we are freedand obligatedto seek reconciliation from those whom we have wronged. It is an historical irony that for centuries, Christianswho claim to esteem the Ten Commandments, even though they do not follow the tenets of Jewish Lawhave been in serious violation of Gods prohibition of false witness against ones neighbor. I call this an irony not because it is humorous, but rather because it is so seriously out of touch with what is supposed to be the tenets of Christianity. After all, it was Jesus who said that what comes out of the heart, and out of the mouth, defiles, For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander (Matthew 15:10-20).

INITIAL THOUGHTS Christians and Jews

The initial conflict between those who believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, and those who did not, was an intraJewish affair. The so-called Jesus movement began as a sect within Judaism, and it was not until the end of the first century that Jews and Christians became distinct religious groups. The first century also witnessed a pivotal event that was to have lasting impact on Jewish-Christian relations for centuries to come. The year was 70 CE, and the event was the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem.

The Temple Destroyed: A Jewish Perspective

For Jews, the loss of the Temple meant the end of the Jewish religion as it had been known. Moreover, by imperial decree, Jews were ordered out of Jerusalem, to be scattered further into the Diaspora among the Gentiles. Over the succeeding centuries, socalled second-temple Judaism gave way to the rabbinical tradition known today, but this was a long and difficult process. Through it

A Christian Day of Reflection all, Jewish identity was kept alive by the belief that no matter their fate in the world, they were Gods Chosen People, entrusted with Gods covenant.

The Temple Destroyed: A Christian Perspective

For Christians, the Temples destruction was seen in a far different light. They interpreted this event as Gods retribution against the blind and obstinate Jews, who had refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah. This was but one argument that would be leveled against the Jews, but its long-term implications are still felt today. At some point, the idea spread among Christians that Judaism had been rejected and replaced by the Church, the so-called New Israel. All the while, Jews and Christians remained minority groups in the Roman Empire. As is well known, Christians suffered various periods of persecution at the hands of the Romansa fate that was, in part, due to their separation from Judaism. Roman religious tolerance was based, in part, upon a respect for antiquity. This provided a certain advantage for the Jews, whose tradition was already millennia old. While Roman polytheists did not understand the monotheistic beliefs of their Jewish subjects, they could nonetheless respect this ancient heritage. Christians, however, could claim no such heritage, no practices handed down through countless generations. And so it was that for a variety of reasons, Christians became the target for Roman persecution.

The Tide Turns: A Christianized Empire

This situation changed, quickly and amazingly, with the conversion of Roman Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. With the subsequent ascension of Christianity from persecuted minority to official religion of the Empire, Christians soon enjoyed 9

the power and privilege of the Holy Roman Empire. But other factors also affected the state of Jewish-Christian animosities. Alongside the religious differences was a prejudice based upon ethnicity. The Jews, always as a people set apart, now became the quintessential minority within a Gentile Christian majority. More and more, Jews were seen as aliens: outcasts of Christian society, and the heretical burr in the saddle of a Christianized empire.

Religion and Ethnicity: The Blend of Anti-Jewish Rhetoric

By the Middle Ages, this melding of the religion and ethnicity found new and darker forms of expression. The alien Jew was seen as a monstersome quasi-demonic figure forever lurking in the shadows, waiting to strike. Rumor had it that Jews were in league with the Devil, practiced black magic, and were responsible for the plague known as the Black Death. Jews, it was said, had poisoned wells, and uttered curses against Christians in their synagogues. The so-called Blood Libel held that Jews suffered from a skin disease that could only be treated by the blood of unbaptized Christian infants. The ritual murder charge taught that Jews would kidnap and murder a Christian child as part of a secret ritual tied to Satanic worship. Jews were also accused of stealing a Eucharistic host, which was desecrated in a hateful ritual designed to mock Christianitys most hallowed sacrament. Based on the belief that the wafer had become the literal body of Christ, stories even circulated that the wafer bled. Such a claim might be rejected as pure legend, but modern science has shown that a certain fungus, known to be reddish in color, may have been growing on the bread. To the casual observer, the host would appear to be soaked in blood.

Prophecy and Christian Supersessionism

A Christian Day of Reflection Such stories merely built upon the original conspiracy: Jews were Christ-killers, who by collusion and abject evil had murdered the innocent man, Jesus. And so, we return again to the arguments based on religious differences. One such argument was based upon the allegorical interpretation of a passage from Genesis 49:10, a prophecy given by the dying patriarch, Jacob, to his son Judah:
The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and the obedience of the peoples is his.

I have dubbed this interpretation, and the tradition that was built around it, the Historical Argument. The implication of this prophecy is clear: Jewish-self-rule would continue until the coming of the Messiah, who is the expectation of the nation. Christians believed that Jesus of Nazareth was this promised Messiah; Jews did not. In the light of the temples destruction, Christians began to teach that because the Jews rejected Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, they had been rejected by God. In short, they were no longer the Chosen People. On the basis of Genesis 49:10, such figures as Justin Martyr, Augustine of Hippo, and Martin Luther proclaimed the whole-scale replacement of the Jews by the Christian church, the so-called New Israel. The Historical Argument plays a central role in Justins Dialogue with Trypho in the 2nd century and appears also in Augustines City of God in the 5th century. Its most virulent exposition is Martin Luthers infamous tract On the Jews and Their Lies, written in 1543, three years before Luthers death. The exact history of the Historical Argument may never be known, but its influence is reflected in the theological conclusionsspoken and unspokenmade throughout Christian history, beliefs that have only recently been officially refuted. For example, a 1965 statement, produced as a result of Vatican II, refuted the notion that the Jews are wholly and singularly responsible for Jesus death. Nonetheless, the Christ-killer moniker is still in use by anti-Semites (and even some Christian

11

churches) today. More recently, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America issued a statement concerning Martin Luthers views on the Jewish people.

Definitions: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Judaism, Anti-Jewish

Hatred of Jews is often called anti-semitism. The term was coined in the 19th century by German writer Wilhelm Marr. In the context of 19th-century scientific racism, Marrhimself a racistwas concerned to find a suitable term for explaining hatred of Jews. In the twentieth century, some scholars began to use the term anti-Judaism to describe sentiments against Jews based religious or theological differences. This was to be distinguished from anti-semitism, which was based not on religion, but on ethnicity. History, however, does not make so clear a distinction. In place of these terms, I therefore prefer to use the term anti-Jewish combining the facets of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. Such an approach takes seriously the fact that for much of history, the line between religious disagreement and ethnic bigotry was often blurred. At the same time, however, we must acknowledge the fact that modern anti-Semitism (that is, hatred based on ethnicity or race) was built on the foundation of earlier, religious animosity. It is this religious aspect that is our focus here. Specifically, we will focus on the so-called historical argument as a theological construct. To further limit the scope, we will examine the historical argument as found in the writings of Justin Martyr in the 2nd centuryspecifically, his Dialogue with Trypho, which purports to be a record of a conversation between Justin and several Jews, only one of whom, Trypho, is mentioned by name. In the Dialogue, Justin repeatedly and emphatically declares Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah; as a result, he calls upon his Jewish listeners to embrace the truth of Christianity, which he believes can be proven by reference to the Hebrew Bible.

JUSTINS BACKGROUND
Little is known about Justin, who was born into a pagan household sometime at the beginning of second century CE, in the town of Flavia Neopolis, in modern-day Syria. Schooled in philosophy, Justin was apparently well-versed in the various schools of Greek thought. By his own account, he had contact with Stoic, Pythagorean and Neo-Platonist teachers, and it was with the Neo-Platonists that he affiliated himself, before his conversion to Christianity around 130 CE. Thereafter, he wrote in defense of his new faith, seeking to show both his pagan and Jewish contemporaries that the Christian philosophy was superior to either Greco-Roman or Jewish alternatives. Justin was martyred around 165 CE. Justin lived at a time before the books of the Christian Bible had been collected and officially accepted by the Church as its canon. From their Jewish roots, however, Christians had accepted and adopted the Hebrew Bible, which they labeled the Old Testament, in contrast to the New Testament of Jesus. As a result, when Justin spoke of Scripture, he was referring to the Hebrew Bible, the Scriptures that Christians continue to share with Jews. Like other Christians of his day, Justin did not read the Hebrew Bible in the same way that Jews would understand them. Rather, based on certain theological presuppositions which will be outlined below, Justin interpreted the Hebrew Bible with a Christian

hermeneutic, which placed Christ at the center of the Scripures. In the process, his interpretations of prophecies led him to conclude that the Jews had been rejected by God, for they had failed to accept Jesus as the promised Messiah. In their place, the Christians had become the new Israel. Among the verses that led to this conclusion was Genesis 49:10, the passage upon which the historical argument would be built. In his Dialogue with Trypho, written around 150 CE, Justins relates his conversation with a group of Jews. The historicity of the Dialogue is debated among scholars, especially with reference to the figure of Trypho. My own suspicion is that the Dialogue reflects not one conversation, but rather a series of conversations between Justin and various Jewish intellectuals. As a result, Trypho may represent not a single person, but rather a type of person that Justin encounteredthat is, a Jewish intellectual, well-versed in Judaism and the customs of his people, who was nonetheless willing to debate with a Christian on the basis of their shared Scriptures. As one reads the Dialogue, it becomes clear that debate for Justin went only so far. In Chapter 52, and with Genesis 49:10 clearly in mind, Justin addresses his Jewish listeners:
[For] neither a prophet nor a ruler failed among your race, until this Jesus Christ both was born and suffered, nor do you dare to shamelessly say [that], nor do you have proof! For nevertheless among your race there was one called high priest, so that then there was someone offering sacrifices for you according to the law of Moses, and nevertheless ruling lawfully and prophesying in succession, until John was bornas also when your people were carried captive into Babylon, when there was warring on the land and the sacred vessels were carried off, a prophet did not cease among you, as lord and leader and ruler of your people. For the Spirit that was in the prophets both anointed and appointed kings for you. But after the manifestation and death of Jesus our Christ among your race, there has by no means been a prophet, nor is there [now]. But you also ceased to be under your own king, and

A Christian Day of Reflection

your land was laid waste, and it has been left behind like a crop-watchers hut.1

This attitude would be repeated in the centuries that followed, and became, in effect, the theological justification for Christian usurpation of the title Israel. Behind Justins use of the Historical Argument stood a number of presuppositions, to which we now turn.

JUSTINS PRESUPPOSITIONS Presupposition #1: The Logos as Divine Agent

Thesis: Justins understanding doctrines of God and of Christ were grounded in ancient Greek philosophy.

It has been said that the aim of the early Greek Philosophers was to find some central principle in the confused multiplicity of existence.2 For Justin, that central principle was the figure of

Dialogue with Trypho 52. Edwin R. Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr: An Investigation into the Conceptions of Early Christian Literature and Its Hellenistic and Judaistic Influences, (First printing, Jena, 1923; reprint, Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1968), 1.
2

15

Christ, whom he understood in relation to the Greek concept of the logos. Justins view of God was heavily influenced by his background in Greek philosophy. Chief among his inheritance from pagan philosophy was a belief in the logos, a Greek concept that incorporated both Reason and Order. The ancient Greek philosophers taught that the God who created the world was far removed from creation. The Stoics contended that interaction with the divine was possible only through an intermediary, the logos. This Logos was a divine principle, through which the world had come into being, and by which it continued to exist. The logos was the culmination of divine Reason or purpose, as well as the instrument by which the divinity had brought order to Chaos. In short, the logos was the the glue that held the universe together. The Stoics also taught that through the process of creation, a spark of divinity had been placed into every human being. Through seed of the logos, it was possible for the human to commune with the divine. This took place through Reason, the acting out of the human potential for rational thought, but it was possible only because of the seed of the logos, the spark of divine Reason. Because one had this spark of reason, one could participate in the universal Reason, or divine purpose for all of creation. And so we see that because of the spark of divinity present in humankind, it was possible for a rational person to find the central principle of creation, and tap into the divine Reason that had created and ordered all that exists. As we have said, the Greeks believed that God was far removed from creation, and that interaction between the divine and the world was possible only through an intermediary. Justin adopted this idea and applied it to the person of Christ. The Greeks held to a strict separation between matter and spirit, but Justin Christianized the Logos, declaring that because Jesus had become a human being, the divine logos had come into the world in a very real and special way. (This teaching is not original to Justin, of course; the Gospel of John proclaimed the same thing a generation or more before Justins time. Whether of not Justin was familiar

A Christian Day of Reflection with the Gospel itself, he certainly subscribed to the teaching it imparted.) By claiming that Christ was the incarnate logos, Justin made several important claims. First, he affirmed the traditional Christian belief that the God of Israel was the God of the Christians. However, his view of God was shaped by Greek philosophy; Justin still did not believe that the God revealed in the Hebrew Bible had communicated directly with humanity. Rather, Gods logos had filled this function. And so Justin would explain that the theophanies, such as voice that spoke to Moses from the burning bush, was not God the Father and Creator, but rather the Logos. Secondly, Justin did not equate this Logos with God. Justin repeatedly and emphatically taught that the Logos was a second God, a being of divine nature, but not of the same kind or type as God the Father/Creator. It was this Logos that became incarnate in the man, Jesus of Nazareth. And here we see the final implication of Justins teaching: like the Stoics, Justin believed that humankind had been imbued with a spark or seed of the Logos. However, only in Christ was the whole of the Logos to be found. As we shall see, this teaching had important implications for his interpretation of prophecy, and for his attitude toward the Jews.

The Logos as Hermeneutical Principle

Thesis: Justin believed that the Jews did not understand their own Scriptures. Conversely, he insisted that only Christians could properly interpret the Hebrew Bible, for only they had the power (given by God) to discern prophecy.

Justin believed that every word of Scripture was important when read correctly, i.e., through Christological allegory. This was further divided into two categories. First was the message itself; second was the vessel by which that message was delivered. The 17

message was the Logos himself who had become man and he was called Jesus Christ (I Apol. 5). The vessel was the Hebrew Bible as a book of prophecy, foretelling the coming of Jesus. Justin believed that the Logos was the key to unlocking the meaning of Scripture. Every person has a seed of the Logos, but only Christians have access to the whole Logosthat is, Christ himself. As a result, true understanding of the Scriptures is available only to Christians. The whole of the Logos brings the gift of understanding and discernment. But this requires faith on the part of the readerthat is, faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God. This means that the Jews, who reject Christ, lack the faith necessary to gain the key (the Logos) to unlock the meaning of their own Scriptures! Conversely, by faith, Christians are given the whole of the Logos, and are therefore able to read and understand the Scriptures. As to why Jews lacked the faith necessary to gain knowledge of the Scriptures, Justin posited several hypotheses. The first was ignorance: Jews insist upon the literal, rather than the spiritual (allegorical) reading. The second was blindness: Jews are misled by their rabbis, who misinterpret Scripture. Third was obstinacy: Jews do understand that Jesus is the Messiah, but steadfastly refuse to accept this as truth. Justin also spoke in terms of jealousy. The truth, Justin declared, was hidden from the Jews by God; the Jews know this; as a result, Jews hate Christians for knowing the truth about Jewish obstinacy:
And it is therefore no surpriseif you also hate those who know these things and convict you with knowledge of your endless hardness of heart. (Dial. 39)

Elsewhere, Justin also claimed that the rabbis had excised certain messianic texts from the Hebrew Bible. Such texts, according to Justin, would have proven the Christians case. Given his reading of Genesis 49:10, Justin may have believed that had Jews seen this as a prophetic or messianic text, it too would have been removed. This is admittedly speculative, but it fits with his general argument.

A Christian Day of Reflection

Presupposition #2: The Mosaic Law as Proscription for Jewish Sin

Thesis: Christians do not follow the Mosaic Law because it was given to the Jews alone.

According to Justin, the Law of Moses was temporary, limited, and ultimately inadequate. In short, the Law had but one purpose: to curb Jewish sin. With the coming of Christ, the problem only became worse: Jews rejected Christ, all the while continuing to place hope in righteousness under the Law. Justin on the Mosaic Law (Dial. 11)
[since] there will be also a final law, and a covenant ruling over all, it was now necessary for every human being to watch, as many as were seeking the inheritance of God. For the Law given on Horeb is already old, and yours alone; but this [Law of Christ] is simply for all. A law placed alongside another law overrides the one before it. And a covenant placed afterwards nullifies the first. And an eternal and final law, and the covenant of faithwhich is Christhas been given to us, after which there is no law, nor order, nor commandment.

Justin on Jewish Obstinacy (Dial. 12)

This very law [of Christ] you have treated shamefully, and you have done evil to his new holy Covenant, and now you neither acknowledge nor repent for your evil deeds. The Lawgiver is present, and you do not see. There is already a need of a second circumcision, but you think greatly upon the circumcision of the flesh. The new Law wills you to continually observe the Sabbath, and you think not working

19

for one day to be pious, not considering why it is prescribed for you.

The Law, given to keep order among a rebellious people, also serves as divine punishment upon them, for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. Circumcision, the sign of the covenant with Abraham, became in Justins eyes a mark of Cane, identifying the Jews for divine wrath. Circumcision as a Mark for Divine Punishment (Dial. 16)
For the circumcision according to the flesh was given by Abraham to be a sign, in order that you might be separated from all nations and from us, so you alone might suffer that which you now are justly sufferingyour lands laid waste and your cities destroyed with firethat others eat your fruits before you, and no one of you goes up into Jerusalem. For you are not known among other people from anything other than the circumcision of your flesh, and none of you, I think, will dare to say that God does not have foreknowledge of the things which were about to happen and are happening, and he is preparing what is deserving for the end. And these things happened well and justly for you, for you killed the Just One and his prophets before him, and now you reject those who hope in him, and the one having sent him, God the Father and maker of all things, and heap insults as much as you can upon him, cursing in your synagogues those who believe in Christ. For you do not have authority to put your hands on us, because of those who now rule over you, but as often as you were able, you did this also.

In other words, Justin contended that Christians do not observe Mosaic Law because they understand why it was given. Gods laws were given in direct proportional to the increasing sin of the Jews, but these laws were never intended to apply to any other people. Furthermore, these laws now serve to punish the Jews for their blindness and obstinacy.

A Christian Day of Reflection

Justin on Gradual Increase of the Law In Response to Increasing Jewish Sin (Dial. 92)
For if someone should wish to inquire of yousince Enoch and Noah together with their children and others like them were acceptable to God, while neither being circumcised nor observing Sabbathsfor what reason God appointed through other guardians and lawgivers, after so many generations, that those from Abraham until Moses were to be justified on account of circumcision, but that those from Moses and afterwards would be justified on account of circumcision and other commandments, that is, Sabbaths and feasts and offerings and sacrifices, [God will be slandered] unless you show that on account of God having foreknowledge, he knew your nation would be worthy to be expelled from Jerusalem, and no one would be permitted to enter into there.

According to Justin, Jewish rejection of Christ and their commitment to the Mosaic Law (which is tantamount to idolatry) stand as proof of their blindness and obstinacy. Moses and the other prophets foretold that the Logos would become flesh. The Jews should have known by this that Christ was the Messiah, if only they would accept the words of their own Scriptures. Justin on Jewish Obstinacy (Dial. 93)
But you [Jews] have not shown friendship or love toward God or the prophets, or toward yourselves, but as has been shown, you were found to always be worshippers of idols and murderers of the just, as also until you laid hands even on Christ himself. For having the ability to understand that this [man] is the Christ, from the signs existing through Moses, you refuse to do so

21

Justin on Jewish persecution of Christians (Dial. 17), quoting Isaiah 52:5 (LXX)
The other nations have not treated Christ and us, his followers, as unjustly as have you Jews, who, indeed, are the very instigators of that evil opinion they [the Gentiles] have of the Just One and of us, his disciples. After you had crucified the only sinless and just Man . . . and after you realized that he had risen from the dead and had ascended into heaven . . . you not only failed to feel remorse for your evil deed, but you even dispatched certain chosen men from Jerusalem to every land, to report the outbreak of the godless heresy of the Christians, and to spread those ugly rumors against us which are repeated by those who do not know us. As a result, you are to blame not only for your own wickedness, but also for that of all others. With good reason, therefore, does Isaiah cry out: Because of you my name is blasphemed among the Gentiles. For the other nations have not had such a grudge in this unjust way against us and against Christ, as far as you, the very ones who are the cause of the preconceived evil which [the Gentiles] have both against us and that one [Christ]. For after you crucified that unblemished and just man [and] when you knew he had risen from the dead and ascended into heaven, as the prophets had foretold, you not only did not repent from your evil deeds, but after choosing select men from Jerusalem, you sent them out into all the land, saying that the godless Christians rose up. And those who do not know us were saying all these things against us.

Here, Justin ties obstinacy to the first Jewish conspiracy theory: Roman persecution of Christians was the carrying-out of Jewish animosity. In Dial. 60, this is also tied to the workings of demons: Justin on Roman Persecution| As Jewish Conspiracy (Dial. 96)

A Christian Day of Reflection

but it was foretold of God that all of you, and those like you, would not believe that this one who existed from the beginning, and was an eternal priest of God, and a king, and the Christ, was about to come. For you curse in your synagogues all those who have become Christians, and the other nations are also carrying out your curse by their deed, killing those who are only confessing themselves to be Christians.

Presupposition #3: Judaism and the New Israel

Thesis: Genesis 49:10 prophesied the eventual end of Jewish self-rule, and the replacement of the Jewish people as the Chosen People of God. In their place, Christians have become the New Israel.

In Dialogue 120, Justin wrote that after Jacob, the descendants were split between his sons. Justin took this to be a prophesy that some Jews would believe in Christ, while others would not, with unbelievers constituting the majority. What Jews fail to understand (ignorance/blindness), or actively rejected (obstinacy), Gentiles have acceptedthat is, that Christ is Messiah. In short, Jewish ignorance, blindness, and obstinacy are the fulfillment of Genesis 49:10. For their rejection of Christ, they have been rejected, and replaced by the Christians as the Chosen People of God. The Church is the New Israel, while the Jews have been abandoned, defeated, driven from their homeland, banished from Jerusalem, and left to wander in the exile of the dispersion among the nations. Justin parsed the word Israel into Isra, meaning a man who overcomes and el, meaning power. The name Israel was therefore tied to Christ, and to the Christians, the New Israel. Conversely, jealousy was tied to the remnant spoken of in the prophets. In the Bible, a remnant is a certain number of people whom God watched over, and who did not submit to the idolatry or apostasy of the greater number of Israelites. In this way, a core

23

of the Chosen People was held back, who would continue the line after all others had fallen away or been punished. For Justin, however, remnant had a somewhat different meaning: he believed that God was withholding final judgment of the Jewish people out of knowledge that some Jews would convert. In the process, of course, Justin changed the definition of remnant to mean those who would become Christians, not continuing the line of Israel as such, but rather joining those who had replaced the Jewish people as the New Israel. Justin on Jewish Conversions (Dial. 39)
day by day, some are becoming disciples in the name of Christ, and leaving behind the way of deception. They also receive good gifts, each as he is worthy, being enlightened through the name of this same Christ.

In Dial. 21, Justin contended that Jews are punished, but not destroyed, so that Gods name will not be profaned among the nations/Gentiles. As a result, the Jews only hope is conversion to Christianity. Justins hope for Jewish conversion was apparently genuine. Again and again, Justin called upon Trypho and the others to reject the teachings of the rabbis and embrace the truths of Christianity. Yet through it all, Justins animosity toward the Jews as a whole is also apparent, and this animosity seems to have been the result of frustration with continued refusals by the Jews to accept Christ as the Messiah.

FINAL THOUGHTS Theological Implications of the Historical Argument

It seems to me that the historical argumentif truemeans that God breaks promises. If, after all, God can reject the Jewish people in favor of the Christian church, what is to keep God from finding yet another group, with which to replace the Christians? In such a context, the claims the Mormons or Jehovahs Witnesses to be the only authentic Christian assembly can hardly be refuted in simplistic terms. For by teaching that God breaks promises, we have opened the way for our own potential rejection, should God find us lacking.

From Antioch to Auschwitz

The Latin theologian, Tertullian, once asked: What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?3 His point was that Greek philosophy ought to have no sway over Christian teaching, and that in fact, the teachings of those whom he labeled heretics were based not on Scripture, but on the Greek preoccupation with speculative cosmology, and with fables and endless genealogies.
3

De praescriptione haereticorum 7.9

According to Acts 11:26, it was in Antioch that the believers in Jesus were first called Christians. And so today, we might change the question to: What has Antioch to do with Auschwitz? All Christians are inheritors of the anti-Jewish rhetoric that has been part of our tradition for centuries. As 21st century Americans, we live in a pluralistic society, where exclusivist claims are met with resentment, and where the memory of these many centuries of religious animosity are still fresh in our minds; indeed, such animosity continues even to this day in certain quarters, perhaps even in our own congregations. In the light of what has been discussed today, then, what are we to do as Christians? The Christian mission to the Gentiles was begun because Jews ignored, dismissed or outright rejected the claim that Jesus was the Messiah. The complex theological reasons for this rejection lie outside the scope of our discussion, but its long-term consequence was that as the Christian movement experienced rapid expansion, the majority of believers in Jesus were Gentiles, rather than Jewish converts. Primarily on the basis of Pauls teachings, Gentiles were not required to adopt Jewish customs such as circumcision and dietary restrictions. Over time, this had the effect of removing Christians from their Jewish roots. Somewhere along the way, a shift in viewpoint occurred, and Christians began to see themselves as the New Israel. Since Jews had rejected Jesus as the Messiah, it was probably a relatively short leap for Christians to conclude that their message about Jesus trumped Judaism. The animosity that existed would only have been exacerbated by the events of 70 CE., which became, from a Christian perspective, de facto evidence that God was punishing Jewish sin. By the late first century, the schism between Gentile Christian and Jewish nonbeliever had become permanent. As each group continued in their own way, this isolation only weakened whatever ties might still have existed. Jews and Christians continued to interacta fact demonstrated in Justins own writingsbut, as they say, history is written by the victors. With the rise of Constantine, Roman society was eventual Christianized, while the

A Christian Day of Reflection Jews were pushed to the perimeter. In the process, their perceived value was also questioned. After all, what place was there for a heretic in Christian society? So began the Jewish Question. One answer was persecution. Pogroms broke out intermittently in the centuries following the triumph of Christianity and the rise of the Holy Roman Empire. The Crusades, aimed at rescuing the Holy Lands from the Muslims, further enflamed anti-Jewish violence. Not content to fight the infidel far away, Christians turned to the heretics nearby. Still another answer was conversion. The Inquisition, aimed at dispelling heresy within the Church, also became a tool to cleanse Christendom of Judaism, or at least to seek for the conversion of Jews. Years later, the answer became expulsion. The year 1492 saw Columbus sail the ocean blue, and the Jews forced from Spain by royal decree. In the late Middle Ages, the answer was suppression: Jews were forced into ghettos. Finally, by Hitlers order, the Jews were to be subject to most horrific solution ever conceived: extermination. Given the admixture of religious animosity, ethnic stereotypes, and conspiracy theories of the Jews as devil, it is little wonder that centuries later, Hitler could find support for his infamous Final Solution. And still the question remains, plaguing a world that has never fully integrated the Jewish people. We noted in the introduction that the medieval period witnessed the gradual transformation of the Jew from heretic, outsider, and vilest form of sinner to monster, existing on the very edge of society, a radical other. In the process, the Jewish people came to be seen as active, scheming, prowling monsters, waiting to strike. Such a view had ceased to be wholly about religious differences. The anti-Jewish sentiments of medieval and early modern times were tinged with ethnic bigotry, which would eventually give way to the full-blown racism of the 19th century. Once the Jews were viewed not merely as religious misfits, but as an active agents working against God's very designs, the door was open for someone like Hitler to take the final, logical step. It is not our purpose to lay at the feet of Christianity the entire blame for the Holocaust. However, history does show that certain Christian theological constructs laid a foundation upon which such 27

hatred was built. The Nazis were not Christians, nor was their neopagan cult of racial purity in any way related to the ideals of the Christian religion. But the fact that anti-Jewish rhetoric continued, long after the split between Jews and Christians was a fact, speaks to the deep animosity that has existed between the Christian and Jewish communities. And so we have the long road, full as it is of twists and turns, from ancient religious dispute to 20th century death campfrom Antioch to Auschwitz. This is a road that we Christians must also walk, if we are to fully comprehend the hatred fomented by our own religious tradition.

A Biblical Answer to the Jewish Question

All of this leads to the task at hand: how shall we begin to overcome the history of animosity and discord that 20 centuries have produced? The answer, I believe, is contained in the New Testament itself. Specifically, I have in mind Chapter 9-11 of Pauls letter to the Romans. In sharp contrast to Justin, Paul sees Israels rejection of Christ not as cause for divine punishment, but rather as part of Gods plan to include Gentiles in the plan of salvation. In the process, Paul characterizes Israels election as irrevocable. Far from becoming a new root unto themselves, the Gentiles are the branches grafted into the rootstock of Israel. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all (Romans 11:32 NRSV). Such an answer will not satisfy all, nor am I completely comfortable with Pauls answer. The fact remains that Christianity makes a very specific claim about Jesus, and sees salvation through the cross of Calvary, to the exclusion of all else. My fellow Christians will no doubt quote to me from Acts 4:12, There is salvation in no one else [than Christ], for there is no other name under heaven given among human beings by which we must be saved. Furthermore, my own tradition, the Lutheran Church, states emphatically that salvation is possible only by grace alone, through faith alone, for the sake of Jesus Christ alone. And yet, my original statement stands, for it seems to me that Pauls exposition

A Christian Day of Reflection calls upon all Christians to take seriously the mysterious ways of God, and does not seek to read Gods mind. Those whom God chose in ancient times are among us today; let us therefore take seriously their status as Gods People, to the exclusion of all others, while we are but the branches, grafted onto the rootstock of Israel.

29

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

John August Schumacher holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history and religion from Concordia College (Moorhead, Minnesota) and a Masters Degree in history and theology from Wartburg Theological Seminary (Dubuque, Iowa). He now lives with his wife and two children near Omaha, Nebraska.