Homily Against the Christian Zionists: John Chrysostoms Response to the Christian Zionist Movement

The Christian Zionist movement argues that the state of Israel established in 1948 is the fulfillment of end-times-prophecy. This supposedly removes the moral responsibility that Israel bears for the genocide of the Palestinians resulting in 3.6 million refugees as of 2003.[1] Christian Zionism is a dramatic shift from the anti-Judaism of early Christian teachings as embodied in John Chrysostom’s Eight Homilies Against the Jews. This paper uses the term “anti-Judaism” as opposed to “anti-Semitism” because the hatred in antiquity had nothing to do with race or economics as it would in twentieth-century Europe.[2] This paper will try to look beyond this blatant racism, focusing instead on the theological arguments imbedded within his sermons. It will then explore how his theological arguments address the Zionism movement. Ultimately, it will seek to find a middle ground between the extremes of anti-Judaism and Zionism.

            Pre-Millennial Dispensationalists have been some of the biggest proponents of Christian Zionism. They believe that there are certain ‘signs of the times’ that indicate that the apocalypse is fast approaching.  One of these signs was the nation of Israel was born in a day (Isaiah 66:8). Signaling for many dispensationalists that the full number of the gentiles has been established such that all of Israel might now be saved (Romans 11:25-26).

            The founder of Christians United for Israel, John Hagee, has been particularly active in the movement. Hagee argues nations that bless the current state of Israel, God will bless, and nations that curse the current state of Israel, God curses. This interpretation of Genesis 12:3 calls for a no questions asked support for the state of Israel, for participation in war with Israel’s enemies and not forcing Israel to give up any land or compromise in any way. Hagee claims he does not have a ‘“dual-covenant theology’[3] rather he holds salvation comes through Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, in his view Jews are still the brothers of Christ, Jesus’ flesh and blood, that Christians must care for based on Hagee’s interpretation of Matthew 25:40.[4] Hagee’s proposal requires that Christians turn their backs on the eight percent of Palestinians that are Christians, about 125,000 of which are still in Palestine.[5]  

            These open embraces of Jews would be unthinkable for Christians throughout the second to at least the sixteenth century. Many historians see the split between Jews and Christians happening in AD 70 with Titus’s destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Christians remembered Jesus prophecy in Matthew 24:16 and fled to the mountains. This flight to the mountains created a separation that became permanent. The divide between the two groups would widen after Christians would not fight with the Jews against the Romans in AD 66-73 and 132-135.[6] This carried over into the thinking of many Christians. Although unaccepted by the church, Marcion (circa 144), went to the extreme of wanting to eliminate the Old Testament and all New Testament references back, illustrating some of the anti-Judaic teaching.[7] Some of the major figures within the church began to denounce the Jews.[8] Justin Martyr (AD 160) in an argument with Jews said ‘The Scriptures are not yours, but ours.’  Ireneaus, Bishop of Lyon (AD 177), declared, ‘Jews are disinherited from the grace of God.” Tertullian (AD 160-230), in his treatise “Against the Jews,” announced that God had rejected the Jews in favor of Christianity. Later, Eusebius (early 4^th C) would argue the promises of the Hebrew Scriptures were for Christians and not Jews; however, the Jews reserved the curses for themselves. He argued that the church was the continuation of the Old Testament and hence superseded Judaism. Jews were like the cursed and barren fig tree never to bear fruit again (Mat 21:18-21).

            These attitudes soon began to influence the policies of the church before and after Chrysostom.

Year	Council	Decision
c.300	Council in Elvira[9]	1) Christians prohibited from sharing feast with Jews 2) Christians cannot use Jews to bless their fields
306	Synod of Elvira[10]	1) Jews and Christians were not permitted to eat together 2) prohibition of intermarriage and sexual intercourse between Christians and Jews
313	Edict of Milan[11]	Outlawed synagogues
325	Council of Nicaea[12]	1)Enacted a series of restrictive edicts against the Jews with the purpose of keeping Gentiles and Jews from worshipping together 2) Easter was never to be celebrated on the same day as the Jewish Passover.
341	Council of Antioch[13]	Forbid Christians from eating Passover with Jews
360	Council of Laodicea[14]	Forbids resting on the Sabbath rather than on the Lord’s day
535	Synod of Clermont[15]	Jews were not allowed to hold public office
538	Third Synod of Orleans[16]	Jews not allowed to employ Christian servants or possess Christian slaves

Written in the fourth century, the Apostolic Constitutions[17]  bears particular importance because of its close proximity to Antioch. The Apostolic Constitutions was a collection of ecclesiastical canons and prayers, some of which derive from the synagogue. The Apostolic Constitutions forbid Christians from entering the synagogues of the Jews. It also urged Christians to avoid the Jewish festivals. The Apostolic Constitutions warned Christians against participation in the Jewish ritual baths. The Apostolic Constitution went so far as to excommunicate a bishop or other cleric who fasts or feasts with the Jews and called for purification of lay people who acted in these ways. All of these policies go to show the extent to which the church hierarchy went to keep Christians away from Jews.  

It is out of this anti-Judaic church hierarchical culture in which John Chrysostom (AD 345-407) would begin to preach against the Judaizers, who worshipped with the ‘Christ killing’ Jews. These sermons would be influential for centuries. They target primarily the Judaizers or those who tried to walk the line between being Judaism and Christianity by attending worship services at the synagogue and honoring Jewish festivals. Those that followed this path threatened to divide the church because they were going against the church fathers. Wilken’s argues the church was struggling to promote a united front, particularly in Antioch. The fact that Christians would participate in Jewish worship but Jews would not participate in Christian worship gave evidence for the truth of Judaism over Christianity.[18]

“What, then, are the questions? I will ask each one who is sick with this disease: Are you a Christian? Why, then, this zeal for Jewish practices? Are you a Jew? Why then, are you making trouble for the Church? Does not a Persian side with the Persians? Is not a barbarian eager for what concerns the barbarians? Will a man who lives in the Roman Empire not follow our laws and way of life? Tell me this. If ever anyone living among us is caught in collusion siding with the barbarians, is he not immediately punished? He is given neither hearing nor examination, even if he has ten thousand arguments in his own defense. If ever anyone living among the barbarians is clearly following Roman customs and law, again, will he not suffer the same punishment? How, then, do you expect to be saved by defecting to that unlawful way of life?”[19]

Chrysostom was a Presbyter at Antioch when he delivered eight sermons against the Judaizers. The Antioch church was in a conflict with the Arian party. The congregation pressured Chrysostom into speaking on the Arian issue. However, the issue of the Jewish festivals being at hand and some of the “brothers” falling into the ways of the Jews took priority over those sermons.[20] Chrysostom considered the Arians outside of the church but the Judaizers as within the church. Therefore, he urged his congregation to rebuke those that attend Jewish festivals or worship services but not to tell anyone lest the disgrace of it fall upon the church.[21]

Another influence for the sermons was Julian the Apostate’s quest to rebuild the Jewish temple and restore the Jews to Jerusalem to sacrifice. Even though Julian had been dead for over twenty-five years, this threat still circulated.[22] This was not just a verbal attack on Christians; it was a historic attack on the church’s teachings. The church had long held that it was the fulfiller of the Old Testament prophecies. Julian’s policy posed a threat to this claim, but Julian’s attempt was unsuccessful. John Chrysostom assured his followers in these sermons that restoration of the temple and Jerusalem to the Jews would not happen until the last days and therefore the church is the rightful heir.[23]

Our current times allow freedom of marriage between religions. Christians are free to hire Jews and Jews free to hire Christians under the law. Jews are free to worship and build synagogues without any objection from Christians. The date of Easter has for the most part been set following the lunar calendar. Nevertheless, the modern day Judaizers still seek to balance their Christian commitments with their Jewish leanings often times favoring the Jewish state of Israel over the Palestinian Christians. The modern day Judaizers have caused conflict in the church, particularly between the Arab church and the Western church with their support for the Jewish state. They have turned away from the traditional division between Christians and Jews that dominated the church from AD 70 through the Reformation.   In 1948, the establishment of state of Israel made reality what was at the time of Chrysostom a threat posed by Julian the Apostate. The current Zionist movement sees the creation of the Israeli state as fulfillment of prophecy.

             Chrysostom’s replacement theology centers around two principles: the priority of the order of Melchizedek over Levi, and the destruction of temple along with sacrifice as prophesied for their unforgivable sin of killing Christ. It is because the church has replaced Judaism as the people of God that the Judaizers must make their choice between the church and the synagogue.

            Chrysostom’s replacement theology has a heavy emphasis on the priesthood of Melchizedek being superior to that of Levi’s. His primary example is that Abraham, Levi’s great grandfather, gave tithes to Melchizedek. For Chrysostom this illustrated that Melchizedek’s priesthood was superior to the Jewish priesthood.[24] Chrysostom saw Melchizedek as a Christ like figure because he was both priest and king of the Most High God.[25] Levi though his line received tithes was subject to tithes through Abraham.[26] Therefore, for Chrysostom, when the Psalmist agues, “The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand’ (Ps 110:1), this signals a prophesied transition from the priesthood of Aaron to the priesthood of another, Melchizedek.[27] Jesus being identified with the order of Melchizedek (Hebrew 5-7), thereby becomes that replacement order which is superior to the priesthood of Aaron/ Levi.

            This new order made sacrifice and the temple unnecessary, hence they were destroyed and never to be restored. Chrysostom saw this in Jesus prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem[28] and in his prophecy to the Samaritan woman regarding the end of worship in Jerusalem.[29] Even following the Jews previous return to the land and rebuilding of the temple, Malachi predicted the coming of the present desolation and the abolition of the Jewish sacrifices.[30] The sheer amount of time that had passed without Israel restoration, at that time nearly three centuries, without the Jews ever returning, also spoke to the truth of Jesus prophecy.  The Jewish age was therefore over. Jews could no longer make sacrifices because God confined sacrifices to the Jerusalem temple. Without the temple in Jerusalem, their sacrifices were just murders.[31]

God forgave the Jews for many sins and returned them to the land in the past. The Jews ancestors worshipped idols, sacrificed their children, killed the prophets among numerous other dreadful deeds. For any of these sins God would have been justified in leaving them in endless captivity. However, they were eventually able to return to the land after a specific prophesied period.  Chrysostom saw this time as different because they committed the worst sin imaginable, killing the Son of God. It is because they killed Christ that Jews lost their land and election.[32] The Jews were Christ-killers who wanted to live according to God’s previous will under the law and not His current will to live in grace. 

            The Judaizers therefore have a choice, they can live captive to the law and the Jewish way of life or they can live in the freedom of grace under the new priesthood. For Chrysostom it was entirely one or the other, because by following one law, like circumcision, one subjects oneself to the burden of the whole law. If one chooses this path and cannot fulfill the whole law, they draw a curse upon themselves.[33]  Instead, Chrysostom advocates that Christ has declared us just.[34] This justification come not from deeds but grace alone. The justice of God became manifest independent of the law through faith in Christ. Christ becomes no advantage to a person when one takes upon the law.[35] Some Judaizers argued that the Jews too have the scriptures thereby making it permissible to attend the synagogue service and festivals. Chrysostom quickly dismisses this argument, arguing that even Satan can speak the scriptures but this does not make him holy.[36] 

It is important to remember that Chrysostom lived during a particularly anti-Judaic period in the church. Additionally, if one presumes that Wilken’s premise that the motivation behind the sermons is to promote church unity, Chrysostom’s argument could be justifiable. Certainly, his hermeneutics could use some work, particularly surrounding the issue of whether the Jews were responsible for Christ’s death. Nevertheless, it does illustrate an interesting dynamic that has occurred, really since World War II, where a once heavily anti-Semitic church began fighting for Jewish rights. During a time when Europeans, particularly the Germans, marginalized and oppressed the Jews, perhaps such a stance would have been justifiable. However, has this movement gone too far? 

            Both extremes of Zionism and anti-Judaism are unappealing. Therefore, it would seem there is a need for a middle ground, a golden mean, between the extreme anti-Judaism of Chrysostom and the current day Christian Zionist movement. An approach that affirms that Christian are called to stand in solidarity with the oppressed, affirm that Israel has a duty to care for the Palestinians, does not associate criticism of Israel with anti-Judaism and better defines who are the children of Abraham, the true Israel.

First, Christians have been called and sent to stand up for the marginalized and oppressed in the world. Contrary to the hermeneutic employed by John Hagee on Mathew 25:40,[37] Jesus is not just talking about ethnic Jews when He calls his followers to care for his brothers and sisters. Even if we grant that Christian concern should somehow be limited to Jesus’ brothers and sisters, are Christians not part of Christ’s family by faith? The church must stand in solidarity with their brothers and sisters in Christ in Palestine, who suffer oppression from the Jewish state of Israel. Chrysostom would rightly criticize the Christian Zionists war against the Palestinian Church as a form of treason. 

            Second, if Israel wants to make a historic and religious claim to the land they must live in accordance with the law. [38] Aliens and sojourners were given religious privileges including Sabbath rest (Ex 23:12), participation in the festivals (Numb 9:14) excluding Passover without circumcision (Ex. 12:48), could make sacrifice (Numb 15:14) and had access to the holist ceremonies without restriction (Josh 8:33). Socially, Israelites were commanded not to harvest the outside of their fields in order that the alien could take freely (Lev. 19:10; 23:27; Deut 24:19-21), when tithes were collected the income was distributed to aliens (Deut 14:29; 26:12) and prevented anyone including the alien from falling into permanent slavery (Lev. 25:47-50). Legally, aliens could escape to the cities of refuge without restriction (Numb 35:15; Josh 20:9), had to be given a fair wage (Deut. 24:14), could not be discriminated against (Lev 19:33-34), had a right to the court system (Deut 1:16; 24:17; 27:19) and every law had to apply to everyone, alien and Jew (Lev. 24:22; Num 9:14; 15:16, 29).  In these ways, Israel’s calling was to be a blessing to the nations. Israel’s current treatment of the Palestinians goes against these laws and principles. When Israel failed to keep God’s law, God kicked them out of His land that He called to steward. Chrysostom would agree that one does not get to select which laws one wants to follow.

            Third, with many of these Zionist movements if anyone says anything remotely negative about Israel and its treatment of its neighbors they classify such things as anti-Semitic. Therefore, because they have cursed Israel they will bring curses upon themselves. This position tends to have many problems with it; primarily it would make the prophets and New Testament writers anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic for some of their remarks.  Isaiah devotes many chapters to chastising the people of Israel for their sins. The John the Revelator calls the Jews a Synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9; 3:9). In the gospel of John, Jesus says the religious leaders father is not Abraham but the devil (John 8:44). Voicing criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Therefore, one must really hesitate before dismissing people, even Chrysostom, for seemingly anti-Judaic remarks. This by no means excuses the many centuries of anti-Judaism in the church.

            Finally, not all of Abraham’s descendents are true children of Abraham. God chose Isaac over Ishmael to carry on the line of the promise. Likewise, God chose Jacob over Esau, illustrating that even at the beginning Abraham’s descendents were spiritual descendents that inherit the blessings. Chrysostom’s replacement theology attempts to illustrate this through its argument that the church is the continuation of Israel and not just a remnant of Israel. While Chrysostom would agree that Jews will only return to the land in the last days, similar to the dispensationalists. This does not somehow mean that the Levite’s priesthood has become reinstated, or somehow overtaken the priesthood of Christ. Chrysostom would argue that one has a choice, either one must completely follow the law or one must embrace the grace of Christ.

 The centuries surrounding Chrysostom, to a modern audience, appears oppressive and hostile towards the Jews in particular. These centuries of Christians were intolerant and derogatory toward the Jews.  Enter into the twenty-first century and Christian Zionists and Jews are like two peas in a pod. Chrysostom would seem to have concerns about the Zionist movement. Zionists like the Judaizers threaten the unity of the church through its opposition of the Palestinians. Zionists like the Judaizers seem to see the Jewish road to salvation as valid and thereby show support for them. There are some stark contrasts between the Judaizers and the Zionists in terms of religious and festival observance. Nevertheless, Chrysostom’s Homilies Against the Jews despite its racism provides a much needed critique of a growing Zionist movement.

---

[1] Burge, Gary M.. Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians. (Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press. 2003), 44

[2] Wilson, Marvin R. Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1989), 91.

[3] Hagee, John. In Defense Of Israel, Revised: The Bible's mandate for supporting the Jewish State (Strang Communications. Kindle Edition. 12-05-2011), Kindle Location 2445.

[4] Hagee, John, In Defense of Israel: The Bible’s Mandate For Supporting the Jewish State. (Florida: Charisma House Book Group. 2007), 6-7

[5] Burge, 191

[6] Wilson, 88

[7] Wilson, 96

[8] Hagee, John  Location 2445-46 Citing:

Clarence Wagner, “The Error of Replacement Theology,” http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1914

[9] Gager, John G. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. (New York: Oxford University Press. 1983), 132-33.

[10] Hagee, 30

[11] Hagee, Location 1740-1741

[12] Wilken, Robert L. John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century. (California: University of California Press. 1983), 76

[13] Gager, 132

[14] Gager, 132

[15] Hagee, 30

[16] Hagee, 30

[17] Wilkens, 72-75

[18] Wilken 160

[19] Chrysostom, St John. Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews. (Unknown. Kindle Edition. 04-02-2010), Kindle Location 1008-14

[20] Wilken, 34-35

[21] Chrysostom,  Location 2378-2379

[22] Wilken, 158-160

[23] Chrysostom, Location 1988, 2020.

[24] Chrysostom, Location 2141-42

[25] Chrysostom, Location 2116-18

[26] Chrysostom, Location 2156-59

[27] Chrysostom, Location 2122-26

[28] Chrysostom, Location 1218-22

[29] Chrysostom, Location 1674-76

[30] Chrysostom, Location 1644-46

[31] Chrysostom, Location 583-86

[32] Chrysostom, Location 1750-55

[33] Chrysostom, Location 422-24

[34] Chrysostom, Location 2057-60

[35] Chrysostom, Location 390-92

[36] Chrysostom, Location 1915-17

[37] Hagee, 6-7

[38] Burge 89-90