[TOD4wDTQ]

I scarcely know how best to pose my question. I feel a little "safer" posting within this forum, but only a little. Please handle me gently.

Reading the current thread about rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem jogged my memory.

A couple of years ago, I was flayed alive, THEN boiled in oil (with imprecations chanted loudly in the background), for suggesting on a homeschooling board (in the context of a political discussion of current events) that Christians are not obligated to support every single action of Israel, no matter what it might be. This was, a very large, very active, profoundly Protestant homeschooling board. I finally severed my connection with that homeschooling board because the overwhelming strength (and error) of multiple Protestant blind spots proved too depressing to bear. (I did not engage in active combat -- I just read a lot of posts.)

I would like to know whether my understanding of some things is wrong. I honestly wish to learn.

I thought that the Church (with "Church" being the Orthodox Church, the true Church) is "The New Israel." With that being the case, we do not award unquestioned, immovable support for the political entity called "Israel." The concept of "God's chosen people" has been revised to refer to members of the Church.

I was raised (haphazardly) as a Protestant. I imbibed the usual viewpoint that Israel is right, no matter what. that Christians have no choice but to support Israel because the Jews are God's special, loved-the-most, people forever. (Not to intend flippancy, but who, then, are the Christians ?) My mindset did not change until I was in my early twenties, and made friends among a Lebanese Orthodox community, and I learned that there are Christians in the Middle East. (Pitiful state of religious education among the Protestants, that we are raised not to know that !) (On the other hand, my parents church sends young people to Russia because there are no Christians in that country !)

Perhaps these questions have been discussed elsewhere in Monachos fora. If so, I would appreciate a link.

Thanks in advance for patience and understanding. (and for information !)

Antonia

[VogsHoock]

(On the other hand, my parents church sends young people to Russia because there are no Christians in that country !)
Antonia

Oh I love so this statement since I have seen first hand proselytism at its worse. Orthodox children (from Orthodox backgrounds) bribed with candies and disposable pens who were retaught how to make the sign of the cross (not by Protestant proselytists of course). But what can we do? Just ask God to forgive them and help us all and have mercy on us all.

And I commend (and admire) you for being an ex-Protestant and with family ties still to that religion and able to raise above those ties and distinguish right from wrong in the name of the Truth and criticize that unfairness. I wish to be like you and be more loyal to Orthodoxy.

[giftplas]

As you say, the Church is the New Israel and those who accept Christ are the chosen people. From a Christian perspective, the Jews do not have any religious claim to the Holy Land whatsoever.

Israel is a secular state and Zionism began as a completely secular movement. While the land on which it was founded has special significance for us as Christians, the state itself is no different from the U.S.A., France, England, Egypt, Kenya, Indonesia or anywhere else.

[bestworkother]

Oh, I just remembered reading the previous post that there is the prophecy which says that before the Second Coming many Jewish people will accept Christ. There will be lots of surprises in Heaven as the other prophecy says.

[PemiaGefe]

The very existence of Jews poses a problem for all of mankind. It is a special case. As such, others approach the very fact of Jewishness with a certain dismay. This has its horrific aspects, as we all know from our history lessons.

For Orthodoxy, ideally, the Jew becomes a typological symbol. The Jew is someone who is given everything and either squanders or distorts it -- he takes what is intended as a blessing, and turns it into a burden and a curse. The Jew is no longer a literal/historical person, but, again, a type, of which I fall prey to on a daily basis. The same with Israel. Israel is no longer a place on a map, but a spiritual destination. The Church is the New Israel which takes us on our journey to the New Jerusalem. The Jew is someone, again, typologically, who cannot see this with his spiritual senses, and so therefore, without the literal/historical Jerusalem being in his possession, he has no place to go. He has no home.

Now, for the Protestant, whose very purpose is to expunge Christianity of all of this allegorical and typological and symbolic nonsense, which is nothing more than the influence of Greek paganism, the Jew and Israel takes on renewed historical significance, with sometimes astonishing conclusions. Luther expected the conversion of all of the Jews, by making common cause with them against the Islamic threat. When they were quite disinterested in his overtures, he reportedly became extremely anti-Jewish.

Protestantism has also literally interpreted all Jews as Christ-killers, as have many European Catholics, and we all know the result of that.

But something strange started to happen in the 1970's with a huge outbreak of apocalyptic fervor among American protestants, who went from being very anti-Jewish to being very pro-Jewish and very pro-Israel. There is an inner logic to their historical determinism that requires them to support the state of Israel as the focal point of Christ's coming. This has good, bad, and even bizarre aspects, due to the flimsiness of the underlying theological belief.

As Orthodox, hopefully what makes us distinctive is that we know what a symbol is. We went through the process of clarifying what a symbol is during the iconoclastic controversy. The same process took place 700 years later in the West, and the result then was a victory for the iconoclasts. Consequently, the inherently symbolic nature of existence is lost in the West, whether Catholic or Protestant. Every once in a while you see a Catholic writer trying to grapple with this, such as von Balthasar, but they are pissing in the wind.

[Qdcqxffs]

Dear all,

I accidentally chanced upon this thread while browsing the forum. I feel very upset as I write this, actually quite betrayed by my fellow monachos posters and Christian brethren. This is only a feeling however, and I will not take it for granted that it reflects anything other than my own insecurity and paranoia.

Nevertheless, the fact that this thread was initiated separately to the 'Temple in Jerusalem' thread, and yet in acknowledgment of being prompted by that thread, I think is significant. There was also talk of being boiled and flayed, hardly words indicating a dispassionate concern for unobtrusiveness.

I think in the 'Temple in Jerusalem' thread and my postings elsewhere on monachos, I've shown that, despite my Jewish origins, I am far from someone who fanatically promotes Zionism or unconditional, uncritical support of Judaism or Israel. I am also far from a critic of Orthodox Christianity. Hence I feel that the fact that the postings in this thread were not a continuation of the 'Temple in Jerusalem' thread, is significant. The word 'timid' in this separate thread title, also suggests that the initiator of this discussion perhaps feared to post anything on the the 'Temple in Jerusalem' thread - in case she got another flaying and boiling, perhaps? If that's the case, I want to assure her that, despite rumors, Jews do not boil or flay anyone (I can't speak for Protestants). And I simply would have been happier if she'd posted her question about Israel to the thread which prompted it, that's all. After all, whether the Orthodox Church as 'New Israel' necessarily means having a supercessionist attitude towards Judaism is the very question that thread is implicitly asking. I would like to believe that, even if the answer is an unqualified 'yes', then maybe the relationship of Orthodox Christianity to Judaism could still tolerate a little more elaboration.

As far as 'the Jew' as a symbol is concerned, Owen, you characteristically toss a fascinating notion at us, without adequately explaining what you mean. I think I'm getting it, and maybe even agreeing with it partly, but I need to hear more about what what you mean. As long as you are saying that spiritually there is 'the Jew' in all of us to consider, and you can also see that literal Jews need not necessarily or more frequently be any more 'Jewish' than Christians are, then I can perhaps go along with what you seem to be suggesting - but I also need to point out that a certain Mr A. Hitler was also quite fond of referring to 'the Jew', so maybe it would be better to come up with a different name for the spiritual condition. After all, 'the American' may describe much the same set of spiritual attitudes, but I'd understand it if Americans were offended by the coinage of such terms. More on 'symbol' and what we Orthodox mean by it, too, please!

In Christ
Byron

[Grizli]

Dear Byron,

I'm so sorry that you greatly misunderstood my post.

The colourful language which I used in my original post described the vicious treatment of me by members of a Protestant homeschooling board. If you ever have spent any time on a Protestant homeschooling board, you quickly would have noticed the extreme intolerance for anything that differs from their worldview. At the time, I felt deep pain. I'm over that now; however, sometimes a writer employs slightly exaggerated language as a coping measure. The word "timid" means nothing more than my hesitancy to discuss the subject, just in case there are Orthodox Christians who also believe that the political entity, Israel, "can do no wrong", and who would, accordingly, blow up at me.

I'm not sure, but your post sounds as if possibly you think I hold a negative attitude about Jewish people. People familiar with my life know how extraordinarily false such a conclusion would be.

I don't know the term "supercessionist", so can't comment.

As to where I posted my enquiry, that now appears to be a simple case of "lose no matter what one does." Had I appended my question to that thread, I might have been "carded" for diverting the thread from its intended topic.

I can't figure out what "betrayal" has occurred. (If you specified, I don't find it.) All that I can figure out is that you may have been reading in a hurry and, thus, severely misunderstood what I wrote.

I hope that this clears things up for you with respect to what I wrote.

Antonia

[cheesypeetyz]

I'm just saying that when the Fathers use the term "Jew" they do so typologically to refer to a certain mindset. It is not and should not be taken as a literal attack at Jewish persons or against Israel. There is much debate about this, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Orthodoxy, as such, has no "position" on "Jews," as far as I know, thank God, although there is a sad history toward Jews in some quarters. And I suspect that there is a large anti-Jewish, anti-Israel bias among most Orthodox throughout the world for a whole host of cultural and historical reasons, none having to do with an adequate Christian theological understanding.

There is a sub-current of apocalyptic thinking floating around in Orthodoxy, among some monastics and others, but I am not aware that our hierarchs are into this much. When you have outbreaks of apocalyptic fervor, for some reason, Jews always get punished for it. For example, the global left is deeply mired in all kinds of apocalyptic fears, from global warming the fear that a comet is going to come destroy the earth, and they have turned virulently anti-Israel, which is odd in the extreme since Israel used to be a kind of shining light of the global left.

The fact remains that the existence of a group of people called Jews is unique in human history, as far as I can see. That God has chosen a certain people for His blessing. A people set apart. So one result is that anyone prone to resentments are going to blame Jews for their misery. For the same reason, kings and aristocrats have been murdered by revolutionaries. Because these people are not like the rest of us, they must be behind a massive conspiracy to keep us down and make us miserable.

Of course, this is a psychological interpretation based on some very modern psychological observations of mass behavior. But Plato delved deeply into the problem of mania as well. So it's really not that new.

So back to your question, I think you are going to see more of the "blame Israel first" crowd among Orthodox than some kind of reflexive, pro-Israel attitude based on apocalyptic theology. But in the last analysis, I'm really not interested in what a priest or Bishop has to say on the subject unless they can point to the FAthers and give me a well grounded theological basis for whatever it is they say. And I am sticking to my point that whenever you see the term Jew used critically by the Fathers, they are using the term typologically, unless and until someone can demonstrate otherwise.

A figure or a type is a representative case for a larger, broader spiritual event or spiritual principle. So the crossing of the Red Sea is a type for our baptism. Jerusalem is a typological symbol for heaven, not a place on the map. And the Jew is a type for someone who has been given a blessing that he is incapable of appreciating, and he squanders it, or misuses it in some way. Thus, it applies to any Christian for whom his faith is something that he uses to beat other people over the head with.

[dicemets]

Dear Byron,

I am not sure you understand how blindly many protestant sects support the State of Israel. For them it is not a political stance but rather a spiritual one upon which the very reality of Armegeddon (and therefore God's promises to His people) hangs.

Fortunately, even in my protestant days as Lutheran, I nor my family was caught up in this cult that necessitates sending bombs and military material to Israel as a point of faith (rather, how we interact with Israel is a political matter).

I know that I am not anti-semetic, yet that term is thrown around in the US carelessly and illogically. I know taht just because I have a negative opinion about Israel or sympathize in part with the struggle of Palestinians (some of whom are my brothers and sisters in Christ) even if not their methods, that I am not anti-semetic. I know that just because I think the US is wrong for blindly supporting Israel (or sticking our head in the sand) at every turn, that I am not anti-semetic. I know that just because I don't believe that the ethnically Jewish people are any more my brothers and sisters than peaceful muslims in my town (Who I also don't despise) that I am not anti-semetic.

Now, others may hold different points of view on what I said. They may feel strongly that we need to support Israel at every turn. They may feel a special connection with the Jewish faithful BECAUSE they are Jewish. I have no problem with that. But none of that makes me anti-semetic.

However, that is the place many protestants find themselves in. Oddly enough, that is the place many "liberals" find themselves in because of the whole Jewish-democrat thing. And neither side wants to seem like a sympathizer of Hitler (and would!?) and because of WWII and the holocaust, the whole Jewish question is understandably a touchy one.

But we can't afford to be offended by others views. Being a westerner or Middle Easterner and a thinking human being, it is impossible not to have opinions about the Jewish people. It's like not having an opinion on human rights. You have to!

But, as long as we respect each man and woman as a created being from God Himself whom He loves just as much as anyone else, an that every one of them (including Jewish men and women) are equally called to Christ and no one has the upperhand, then that is as far as the spiritual question goes. It's not about the Temple, tanks, Palestine or even the Holocaust. It's about God-Incarnate saving man from himself.

Joshua

[excivaamome]

Dear Owen,

Thank you for your clarification. I think you are going to see more of the "blame Israel first" crowd among Orthodox than some kind of reflexive, pro-Israel attitude based on apocalyptic theology. But in the last analysis, I'm really not interested in what a priest or Bishop has to say on the subject unless they can point to the FAthers and give me a well grounded theological basis for whatever it is they say. And I am sticking to my point that whenever you see the term Jew used critically by the Fathers, they are using the term typologically, unless and until someone can demonstrate otherwise. If only more Christians were able to think as you do. As it is, the "blame Israel first" crowd seems more numerous. I still think 'American' would be an equally appropriate term to describe "someone who has been given a blessing that he is incapable of appreciating, and he squanders it, or misuses it in some way". Or maybe "European". Or perhaps "Asian". You catch the drift, it's been around since Adam (BTW, was he Jewish?).

Dear Antonia,

I hope this is helpful to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercessionism. "I'm sorry that you greatly misunderstood" is different from "I'm sorry".

In Christ
Byron

[arreskslarlig]

You catch the drift, it's been around since Adam (BTW, was he Jewish?).

Adam could not possible have been "jewish" whilst actually being "Jewish" ... was he then an Israelite? No, he was not even that ...

We can only truly use the term "Ïsraelite" to represent a "Chosen People" of God, after the Exodus ... with the giving of the Law by Moses.

[duminyricky]

We can only truly use the term "Ïsraelite" to represent a "Chosen People" of God, after the Exodus ... with the giving of the Law by Moses.

The term Israelite has nothing to do with Exodus or the giving of the Law. It refers to the descendents of Jacob, and has its origin several generations before those events.

INXC, Deacon Matthew

[KevinDonae]

Dear Friends,

This topic is drifting to the political (the statements about the secular relationship between the US and the state of Israel) which is outside the scope of the forum. The commnts about zionism and other pseudo religious movements also need to be considered carefully about how they relate to Orthodoxy. Please help us keep this thread on track.

Fr David Moser

[raspirator]

And I am sticking to my point that whenever you see the term Jew used critically by the Fathers, they are using the term typologically, unless and until someone can demonstrate otherwise. I'm assuming you mean ancient Fathers. Among some modern Fathers, unfortunately, things get more than typological.

[Civilrecordzz]

But something strange started to happen in the 1970's with a huge outbreak of apocalyptic fervor among American protestants, who went from being very anti-Jewish to being very pro-Jewish and very pro-Israel. There is an inner logic to their historical determinism that requires them to support the state of Israel as the focal point of Christ's coming. This has good, bad, and even bizarre aspects, due to the flimsiness of the underlying theological belief.

I would only modify that to "theological beliefs". I've seen several different ways that uncritical pro-Israeli sentiment has been justified by Evangelicals. To oversimplify two of the most common I've run across:

(1) The reappearance of Israel as a nation shows that the end times are near; God is bringing history to a conclusion using Israel as His instrument; so, to oppose Israel is to oppose God's plan. Often accompanied by a belief that all of this disproves the idea that the Church is the New Israel.

(2) The reappearance of Israel proves that God has not abandoned the Jews and still holds a special place for them; to oppose them is to run afoul of the promise to Abraham: "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse."

There is also a common non-theological view which can be summarized as: the mainstream media (MSM) can't be trusted, as they constantly slant the news to hide the real truth; the MSM are consistently on the pro-Palestinian side; therefore, the Israelis are probably almost always in the right. Technically this view is not uncritical, but it does hold any anti-Israel statement to a much higher standard of proof.

My circle of acquaintance hasn't included many uncritically anti-Israel people, so I can't neatly oversimplify their positions.

In any case, I think the main problem is in, after deriving a political position from a theological stance, thereafter allowing the political position to stand on its own as if it were dogma in its own right. Politics is far too messy a business to not require views to be constantly re-evaluated; carving views in stone doesn't fit an arena where positions are written in sand.

Michael

[aspinswramymn]

I get "upset" (not a literal kind) with this topic from the point of view that each side assumes the worst stance from the other side. The reality (IMHO) is that their is a big difference between:

Anti-Semitic (AS) versus Anti-Judaic (AJ)

Anti-Semitic is an attack on the individual people for being part of a system that I dont approve of and Anti-Judaic is more about not approving or agreeing with the concepts of that system.

I think that as an Orthodox it should not be acceptable to be AS since this contradicts the commandment of Love ... however, to be Anti-Judaic agrees with the commandment to Love God above all else ... so, if I disagree with the Judaic system, or the Protestant system or whatever other system outside the fullness of the truth - surely that can not ALSO be AS?

[MatueHarton]

To slightly correct Vasiliki's point, 'anti-semitic' does not at all, despite media tendencies, have anything directly to do with Jews. It has to do with Semites, the descendents of Shem - which includes Arabs as well as Jews, and many others.

[yovbQVpD]

Etymologically you are right, Father, but you would be hard-pressed to find a dictionary that primarily defines anti-semitic as hatred or opposition of semitic people; the word's common usage is certainly related to the Jews in particular. This link shows a number of references from different dictionaries:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-semitism

Whether media tendencies caused this narrower usage of "anti-semitism" or are just a reflection of it, is a moot point.

Anyway, I agree with Vasiliki's point that there is a difference between opposing Judaism and opposing Jewish people. However this can get very confusing if, as Owen says, the Jew is used as a symbol for the person who rejects the grace and mercy of God that is already His. And I do find what Owen says very interesting. What the Jew represents is given very often in the Parables of Christ. So, for example, the elder brother of the prodigal is the Jew; the wicked tennants who killed the son of the vinyard owner are the Jews; the grumbling vinyard workers who toiled from the first hour while receiving the same pay as those who came later are the Jews. Of course, as Owen and others have also mentioned, as Christians we have now received the fullest blessings and mercy of God; therefore we also become "a Jew" - like the elder brother, or the grumbling vinyard workers - if we too becomehard-hearted.


The Fathers of the Church who commented on the Jews, like St. John the Golden-mouthed, were anti-Judaic rather than anti-Semitic. The difference between the two is due to dispassion. By hating the Judaic tradition that had grown up from time of the Incarnation and apart from Christ, he was not hating any person who followed that faith. The opposite is true: he loved them, and so opposed the thing that kept them apart from salvation in their Messiah.

[Xewksghy]

To slightly correct Vasiliki's point, 'anti-semitic' does not at all, despite media tendencies, have anything directly to do with Jews.

I think should not would be more accurate. As it is, I have never seen anyone apply the term anti-semitic to anti-Arab prejudice.

[elektikaka]

Just because everyone else is loose with language, doesn't mean we need to be!