The Economy of Forgiveness Trades in the Currency of Mercy


‘We will build a better South Africa through radical economic transformation’
(President Jacob Zuma on Heritage Day, 24 September, 2017)

Introduction: Justice and Love

The economy of forgiveness trades in the currency of mercy, not in justice.  This in no way diminishes the importance of justice, but it locates the concerns of justice correctly.  If we make justice the chief virtue, we withhold forgiveness until it is satisfied.  Mercy does not wait at the fire while justice and injustice negotiate in the kraal.  Justice, rather, awaits the response of injustice to mercy.  Attaching the economy of forgiveness to restitution for wrong seems very sensible: it is, after all, just.  Yet Jesus repeatedly overturned this logic in his Kingdom economy, which trades rather in the currency of mercy.

To understand the difference, consider the four cardinal virtues of the Greeks and Romans: prudence, courage, temperance, and justice.  Justice was the scales on which the virtues were held in right balance.  So goes many a theory of social justice: it is the chief virtue by which other virtues are measured and balanced.  Yet even the casual reader of the New Testament finds that the early Church held a different view, based on Jesus’ own interpretation of the Law.  Jesus said that the chief law was love:

Matthew 22:36-40 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"  37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.  38 This is the great and first commandment.  39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

With love, not justice, as the key virtue, our understanding of all the virtues shifts.  This is not to remove justice from a list of the virtues.  It is to replace it as the chief virtue.  (Had Plato elevated love above justice, his ideal Republic would have looked very different.)  The Christian virtue of love interprets other virtues and draws other virtues out of the shadows and into the light of the Christian community:

Colossians 3:12-14 Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,  13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.  14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

Labour is Not a Right but a Mercy in God’s Kingdom

In Jesus’ Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 22.1-16), labour and remuneration are not rights but mercies.  This seems profoundly unjust—and that is just the point.  The day labourers are hired from the marketplace: they have no steady job.  They have no grounds to insist on labour from the owner of the vineyard, and any labour that they are offered is itself a matter of mercy.  The parable focusses on the fact that the labourers were hired to work at different times, and so some worked all day in the sun whereas others worked shorter periods of time.  At the end of the day, all the labourers were paid the same amount.  In an economy focussed on justice, this is unfair: equal pay for equal labour would suggest different pay for different labour.  However, in an economy focussed on mercy, there is no basis on which to argue for wages commensurate with hours worked.  Employment and remuneration are acts of mercy.  Mercy turns justice on its head.

The Relation between the Faithful Exercise of Responsibility and Having Unequal Resources in God’s Kingdom

In Jesus’ Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25.14-30; Luke 19.11-27), the faithful exercise of responsibility for work in the Kingdom is laid on all.  Fairness is not based on the equitable distribution of resources.  Some people are better at business than others and are, therefore, given more or less oversight of resources.  All, however, are to exercise their responsibilities faithfully.

The Kingdom does not, in this parable, involve equalizing resources but increasing them for those who prove themselves responsible in their management.  The thrust of the parable involves emphasizing that even the person with the least resources has obligations to use them in God’s Kingdom.  In an economy that understands justice to be the equitable distribution of resources, this is unjust.  In a Kingdom economy, the faithful exercise of responsibility is rewarded with more responsibility for more resources.  The resources are not one’s own, to be used for self-gratification; they belong to the King and are to be used for His purposes.  The question is not, ‘How do we distribute resources equitably,’ but ‘Is the person with resources multiplying them in a way pleasing to God?’

The Value of Resources

On one occasion, Jesus observed a widow giving her two copper coins (KJV: ‘mites’) in the collection at the Temple.  His response was not to say that she should be excluded from giving because of her meagre resources.  Instead, he commented on the relative amount she gave from her resources: ‘Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them.  For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on’ (Luke 21.3-4).  The story is irrelevant to the lives of others: her offering amounts to nothing.  It is not irrelevant to God, however, who sees things from a different perspective.  Like the Parable of the Talents, God is aware of how we have used our resources.  While the point is made in regard to money, this is only illustrative of the use of resources of all kinds for God.

In Luke 16.1-15, Jesus says further things about the use of resources.  The Parable of the Shrewd Manager is not as straight-forward as other parables, but the added comments after the parable can help us to understand its point.  An unjust manager who is to be terminated from his employment quickly reduces the debts of creditors in order to make friends with them.  The parable is about assessing one’s resources and using them for good.  The manager quickly realised that he lacked the resource of physical labour and could not see himself being turned out onto the street to beg.  So, he used the only resource he had: his position as manager before his termination to reduce the debts of creditors.  The master in the parable commends his manager for his shrewdness, even though it was to his own loss. 

The interpretation of the parable involves seeing that finances are not eternal, and therefore they are expendable.  Thus, the parable teaches that money should be used not for temporal but eternal purposes.  Jesus further says, ‘And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings’ (Luke 16.9).  He later adds, ‘No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money’ (Luke 16.13).

Wealth is not seen as a blessing in the Parable of the Talents, the story of the widow’s copper coins, and the Parable of the Shrewd Manager.  Nor does Jesus put forward the idea that there should be economic equality.  Rather, he upturns the whole discussion.  First, he attaches resources to responsibility: to the one who is given much, much is required (Luke 12.48).  Second, he offers a different ‘exchange’ for wealth in the Kingdom.  Earthly wealth loses its value on the Kingdom market exchange.  God sees what one does with one’s wealth (whatever one’s resources, gifts, talents, position, education, etc.) relative to what one has and to the purposes of His eternal Kingdom.

If this is so, then Kingdom economic is not a matter of equality, even if great wrong can be done when the wealthy accumulate more and more money at the expense of their employees.  Yet the solution to economic injustice has more to do with teaching everyone to be responsible with their resources and to do with understanding this responsibility in terms of life in God’s Kingdom.  The poor person does not stand with a hand out to the wealthy person, but both stand before God to give an account of their use of the resources they were given.  The wealthy person has greater responsibility, but both are responsible.  This changes the dialogue of economic justice.  Instead of seeing the matter in terms of the spreading of wealth, it focusses the conversation on the responsible use of wealth.  And what might that responsibility look like?  James writes,

James 1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world…. James 5:1-6 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.  2 Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten.  3 Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days.  4 Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.  5 You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.  6 You have condemned; you have murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you.

An Ethic from the Heart Crosses the Boundaries of Justice

The ‘Kingdom’ is not to be understood only in terms of spiritual salvation.  Clearly, it is that, but it is more.  The Kingdom of God has to do with every aspect of life before God, with living under His rule.  Repentance, forgiveness, and entry into the Kingdom are the beginning; life in the Kingdom is the goal.  This entails an ethic from the heart, which presses ordinary measures of justice to a new level of righteousness.  It crosses the boundaries of justice.

Instead of laws on murder, Kingdom ethics asks about anger in the heart.  Instead of laws on divorce and remarriage, Kingdom ethics addresses lust.  Instead of rules about keeping one’s word, Jesus calls for an entire life of honesty.  Instead of retributive justice—an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth—Jesus calls for non-retaliation and even giving generously to oppressors.  Instead of loving one’s neighbours and hating one’s enemies, Jesus calls for an ethic of the heart that prays for enemies (Matthew 5.20-48).

This ethic of the heart will include how one treats the poor and uses wealth.  Thus, for example, Jesus on one occasion challenged the attachment a young man had to his wealth instead of the responsibility he should have felt for the poor.  He says, ‘If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me’ (Matthew 19.21).  Laying up treasures in heaven instead of on earth (Matthew 6.19-21) does not mean spiritual piety without regard for the use of wealth.  It means having a heart that values what is valuable in the Kingdom of Heaven rather than what is deemed valuable on earth.  Instead of accumulating possessions for a momentary enjoyment, our focus should be on the values of the Kingdom.  Certainly, one of the great values of the Kingdom is the care for the poor, widows, and orphans (Psalm 68.5; Isaiah 10.2; 1 Timothy 5.3; James 1.27).  It is also concern for the proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom to all nations, converting the lost, and teaching Jesus’ commandments (Matthew 28.18-20).

Thus ‘righteousness’ is not interpreted in terms of equity in social or economic terms.  It is not simply a matter of justice in society.  It goes deeper, addressing the change needed in the heart.  This is, after all, the prophetic understanding of the coming new covenant, which Jesus brought.  Jeremiah said,

Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Voluntary Wealth Redistribution and Responsibilities in Community

In the early Jerusalem church, believers practiced the equal distribution of resources.  This went beyond a generous reparation, as when Zacchaeus said he would repay any from whom he had unjustly stolen as a tax collector with additional compensation (Luke 19.1-10).  Of the early Church, we read that

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold  35 and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need (Acts 4.34-35).

Yet this was voluntary (Acts 5.4).  Some form of economic justice might require the redistribution of wealth or the availability of resources for all in the community.  If, however, ethics is a matter of the heart, any understanding of justice has to go deeper, to righteousness.  Matters of the heart are voluntary, not coerced.  People in the Kingdom should feel the pressure of responsibility to the needy in their midst, not the pressure of obedience to some outward standard that does not touch the heart.

Forgiveness, Mercy, and Love

This brings us to a deeper understanding of forgiveness as well.  Jesus’ Kingdom economy, as we have seen, upsets the logic of justice.  It is based on mercy and love.  Forgiveness is not something to be given when equitable justice has been mandated and carried out.  A Biblical understanding of forgiveness has to do with forgiving the person who does not deserve forgiveness.  It is based on God’s forgiving us, and God does not forgive us because we are good enough or worthy but because we are unworthy. 

Thus, Jesus teaches his disciples to pray, ‘Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors’ (Matthew 6.12).  No one can pay the immense debt owed to God, but He mercifully forgives us (Matthew 18.23-35).  Forgiven, we forgive; forgiving, we are forgiven.

An argument that forgiveness is not possible until due contrition and restitution have first been made fails to understand Christian forgiveness.  God’s final judgement on sinners will not be the result of His being unable to forgive sinners but the result of forgiven sinners for whom Christ died not turning to Him in obedience, thanksgiving, and praise.  Forgiveness is not linked to justice but love.  This is why Jesus can say,

Matthew 5:44-47 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,  45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.  46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?  47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Love will, assuredly, call for social justice.  But social justice is not the condition of a love that forgives.  This is John’s point when he reminds us that God is love:

1 John 4:7-11 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.  8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.  9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.  10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.  11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

The table of grace during the Eucharist calls every believer in Jesus Christ to come receive his body and blood, for he died for all our sins.  While some sins are worse than others, there is no exception: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3.23).  Jesus warns against comparative self-justification for having lesser sins and shifts the focus to sincere repentance in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:

Luke 18:11-14 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.  12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'  13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!'  14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

This parable requires us to see the relationship between forgiveness—justification—to sincere repentance.  It requires us to give up the idea that we might be justified because our own sins are not as bad as others.  It may be true that our own sins are not as bad as others, but that does not make us acceptable before God.  We are all sinners, and God requires of all of us true repentance for our sins.  Anyone who withholds forgiveness to another because he or she believes the other’s restitution for wrong is not yet sufficient becomes the Pharisee in this parable.  Anyone who focusses on his or her own sins and is truly repentant before God becomes the tax collector in this parable.  Let the one who withholds forgiveness until restitution is complete ask, ‘For whose sins did Jesus die?’  Jesus died for us all, for all our sins.  He died for me, even for my sins.

To withhold forgiveness from someone who has sinned against us when God has forgiven us so much more does not establish justice; worse, it rejects mercy.  When Jesus answers Peter’s question about how many times he should forgive someone who has sinned against him, Jesus tells the Parable of the Debtor (Matthew 18.21-35).  In this parable, a king settles accounts with his servants and mercifully forgives one servant an enormous debt.  The same servant then refuses to forgive another person a small debt, throwing him into jail until he repays the debt.  The king is informed, and he summons the servant.  He says to him, ‘Should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ (Matthew 18.33).  Restitution is not the basis for our forgiveness; a profound gratitude for God’s mercy is the basis on which we forgive others.

Conclusion

We have examined aspects of the economy of the Kingdom of God in Jesus’ teaching.  We have seen that forgiveness trades in the currency of mercy.  This is different from an economy focussed on justice.  It is a more radical economic model.  The Church’s mission in the world is to show the world a more radical possibility than its best efforts at justice offer.  What the Church offers is not an unattainable ideal but a living out of a reality established in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ: the reality of God’s mercy towards sinners.  Justice would have us withhold forgiveness until right restitution is made.  Quite practically, this is never possible for a host of reasons.  We might attain some measure of this sort of justice from time to time, but justice is never satisfied.  When is repentance enough?  When has restitution been sufficient?  When are people sufficiently served equal rights?  This economy, while it might accomplish great things, remains tied to a vicious cycle of righting wrongs and balancing rights.

The Kingdom economy upends justice by focussing on mercy.  It is based not on an ideal but on the reality of God’s forgiving us.  This enables us to go beyond matters of justice in order to right wrongs.  It sets the example of mercy and love before us.  It reduces us all to equality in our sinfulness before God rather than trying to establish an equality in our rights.  As Paul asks the Corinthian church, ‘What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?’ (1 Corinthians 4.7).  This perspective allows him to say to those seeking justice in the community before courts of law a little later in the epistle, To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?’ (1 Corinthians 6.7).  Paul first offers a system of justice based on the Old Testament for the Corinthians (vv. 1-6), but he eclipses this with his radical call to suffer wrong.  Behind this, certainly, stands a Kingdom ethic of the cross.

Peter, too, confounds justice with the economy of the cross of Jesus Christ:

1 Peter 2:18-25 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.  19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.  20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.  21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.  22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.  23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.  24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.  25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.


This Christian economy is not an endorsement of injustice—there is plenty in Scripture that calls for justice and warns of judgement for injustice.  Justice has neither become irrelevant nor a vice!  It is, however, a weaker currency in a sinful world’s economic depression.  We need the gold standard of mercy.

Modes of Enquiry and the Gender, Sexuality, and Marriage Debate: From Teacher to Lecturer to Dialogue Partner to Tribal Warrior

Martin Davie’s response to the manifesto ‘Christians United in Support of LGBT+ Inclusion in the Church’ (issued on 30 August, 2017) is excellent.[1]  Davie takes each point and shows its inconsistencies, particularly with Scripture and the Christian tradition.  In light of the ongoing pressure through dialogue to come to an affirming view of multiple instead of binary sexualities and of sexual desires, acts, and relationships contrary to Scripture and Church teaching, Davie’s patient explanation of the manifesto’s errors is most welcome.

My point in this blog post is much more specific.  It is that the nature of the dissemination of knowledge and the approach to enquiry have shifted radically in the past few decades, and this has led to changing convictions.  With this manifesto (and the likes of it), we appear to be moving on from the era of dialogue befitting postmodernity to a new era of liberal fundamentalism characteristic of Western tribalism.  In the past, the Christian teacher was replaced by the university lecturer as the Church battled a shift to Modernity in the Enlightenment and afterwards, and then the university lecturer gave way to the dialogue partners of postmodernity.  The latest development is that dialogue is giving way to the warriors of Western tribalism, in which a particular (politically ‘correct’) tribe dominates others.  Now, teaching is tribal mentoring that conforms to the tribe's closely held beliefs and practices.

In making this point, I would refer the reader to Alisdair MacIntyre’s Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry.[2]  MacIntyre argues that there are three, incommensurable versions of moral enquiry.  The first is to be associated with Modernity.  He calls it ‘encyclopaedia’ because the encyclopaedia well describes the manner in which this enquiry proceeds.  It assumes a Cartesian method of doubt, followed by establishing foundational absolutes, followed by study that finds a unity in all truth.  The sciences offer good examples of how this process of enquiry unfolds.

MacIntyre terms his second version of enquiry ‘genealogy.’  It challenges the encyclopaedic version in that it rejects foundationalism and absolute truth, and therefore the notion that truth is unified.  Friedrich Nietzsche argued in his On Genealogy of Morals that morality is the expression of power: persons in power use their situation to create a morality to keep others in check.  Morality is not absolute but is conditional, contextual, constructed, and local for the postmodern ‘genealogist’ and, for Nietzsche, is also a matter of power and suppression.  Indeed, in the dialogues and conversations set up in Western mainline denominations around the issues of gender, sexuality, and marriage, the dynamics of power and suppression have always been lurking in the shadows.

MacIntyre’s third version of enquiry is termed ‘tradition.’  Unlike encyclopedia, it does not begin with doubt that removes all beliefs before embarking on a programme to establish foundational truths.  Instead, it begins with faith and seeks understanding.  The convictions of faith are studied in terms of their fidelity to authorities—such as Scripture and the Church’s teaching.  A community’s faith becomes a starting point for enquiry, not to be erased in order to find universal, scientific, foundational truths apart from faith.

In his Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, MacIntyre observes that different approaches to study are involved.  He notes that the lecture fits very well with the encyclopaedic version of enquiry.  A lecturer assumes that the audience lacks knowledge, and the audience does well to remain in a passive posture to receive the knowledge of the expert lecturer.  This has been, and in many departments still is, the model of instruction in the universities.  In the genealogy version of enquiry, the lecture is most inappropriate.  What is needed is a process of dialogue that values diversity and inclusiveness.  (Think literature department instead of physics department in the university.)  For this to ‘work,’ everyone needs to buy into the idea that there is no discovery of truth, only an endless process of engagement. 

The reductio ad absurdum of such a view of enquiry is that, despite all the talk about diversity and inclusion, those who believe that there is a truth, a moral standard, a created order, a revealed word of God are, necessarily, rejected.  Diversity and inclusion cannot be extended to everyone and are, in the end, actually a sham.  Unity around a politically correct conviction, not diversity, and exclusion of those who hold anything otherwise, are in fact the values of this post-postmodern, tribal community.  That is, the genealogy position is, as Nietzsche observed and embraced, not a position of diversity and inclusiveness but a position of power.  Thus, the genealogy—or postmodern—view of enquiry inevitably evolves quickly into a form of tribalism in which one tribe excludes another on the basis of shared particulars of one sort or another.

In the case of the ‘Christians United’ manifesto, we no longer have the view that diversity and inclusiveness are valued in themselves but the view that the articles of conviction affirming LGBT+ identities and practices offer particulars that define a particular, politically correct tribe and exclude all dissenters.  In the ‘Christians United’ manifesto, the tribe is declared to be ‘Christian,’ yet it roundly attacks the Scriptures and historic, Christian tradition on the issues of gender, marriage, and sexuality.  While championing ‘diversity and inclusion’ in dialogue in a culture that still accepts a postmodern approach to enquiry, the tribal chiefs (or archbishops) pressing the LGBT+ agenda are set on defining a politically correct community that rejects traditional Christianity and natural law.

MacIntyre’s third version of enquiry, tradition, is easily recognisable to all familiar with Christian tradition, yet it shares features in common with other traditions as well.  The tradition approach to enquiry disseminates information through a trusted teacher, one who is faithful to the authorities of the tradition.  He or she might offer lectures, as the encyclopaedist does, yet the monastic robe replaces the laboratory coat, as it were.  Unlike the postmodern dialogue, people gather to learn the traditional teachings and to investigate them according to the canons of faith.

One reason, surely, that the LGBT+ agenda has advanced in Western, mainline denominations is that, at the same time, Western culture has transitioned from an encyclopaedic Modernity to a genealogical Postmodernity.  Not only the convictions but the mode of engagement and enquiry have changed.  The method of enquiry has led the change in convictions themselves.  Audiences no longer submitted themselves to lectures about such basic absolutes as sexuality and gender, and the denominational leaders submitted their constituents to years of dialogue that did not seek truth but simply mutual understanding, inclusion, and acceptance.  Lost in all this was the proper role of the teacher in communities of faith.  Instead, these leaders mandated that laity, clergy, and scholars had an equal role to play in listening to one another, without anyone teaching anyone else.  In a word, the tradition of faith was silenced in the circle of emotional ‘sharing’ of experiences.  Indeed, the tradition of faith became the outsider of the new tribe that, among its various tricks, insisted on calling itself ‘Christian’ when, in fact, it rejected Christian authorities and history.

Yet the Christian tradition lives on, despite these onslaughts in the West.  In fact, in many areas it thrives and is not self-destructing and crumbling in numbers, as are the mainline denominations outside the majority world.



[1] See Martin Davie, ‘Christians United, An Analysis and Response’; online at https://mbarrattdavie.wordpress.com/2017/09/12/christians-united-an-analysis-and-response/ (accessed 12 September, 2017).
[2] Alisdair MacIntyre, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, 7th ed. (Univ. of Notre Dame, 1991).

Towards an Ethic for Mission and Ministry Practice

Following Aristotle (Nichomachian Ethics), ethics might be thought of in terms of a craft (te,cnh) practised by a guild (think: a particular community).  This brief essay will follow this analogy and expand the thought with additional consideration of ethics in terms of 'narrative'.  Ethics may be understood, in part, as virtues that are acquired through the formation of particular habits and that are aimed at achieving certain ends.  These virtues and ends are understandable against the narratives by which people frame their lives.  Examples will be offered for mission and ministry practice by Christian communities.

1. Ends.  We need ends or goals (te,loj) to guide our actions if we are to have purposeful lives.  (Craftsmen who make things out of wood—carpenters—need to have specific goals, such as that they are making chairs and not wardrobes.)  For ethics, the end that moral ‘craftsmen’ need to pursue is the highest good, for this end gives meaning to all other ends.  Aristotle spoke of this highest good as 'pleasure' (not Hedonism, but the life that brings satisfaction); the Westminster Catechism spoke of the chief end of humanity as 'to glorify God and enjoy Him forever'.  A narrative ethic might phrase the chief end in terms of 'faithful living within the narrative by which we live' (as opposed to effectiveness, e.g.).  Jesus' said that the chief among all Moses’ laws was to love of God, and the second was to love one’s neighbour' (Mt. 22.37-40).  One way of expanding the idea of 'end' in ethics is to speak of 'moral vision'--the way we see the world through our unique community and tradition.
*If development work has the more immediate ends of 'caring for fellow human beings' and 'self-empowerment of vulnerable people by meeting their basic needs', how will these ends relate to the ‘chief’ end of humans?  How will these ends affect other aspects of development work, such as the development of character and practices?
*Is the language of ‘human rights’ sufficient to explain the moral life?

2. Virtues.  A craft involves certain virtues.  'Areth, (virtue) means 'that quality of a thing which helps it accomplish its purpose (‘end’) well.'  If we are making knives, the virtues of the knife might be: sharpness, a good weight, good grip, the right blade for the right task (serrated or not), pricing, etc.  Aristotle defines a virtue as the mean between two extremes (deficiency and excess, which are vices).  Neither a dull knife nor a razor will be helpful in eating steak.  The virtues define a person’s character (h;qoj).  The practice of the craft itself also involves certain virtues: virtues associated with a business ethic and work ethic.
*What 'common virtues' apply to all involved in a certain practice?  (E.g., for the practice of communication [such as being a reporter or writer], virtues might involve accuracy, truthfulness, clarity, conciseness, balance, relevance, being interesting, etc.)  What about Development practices?
*What 'specific virtues' apply to Christian mission practice?  Development work?
*How will ethics understood as development of character within a given tradition and community be different from ethics understood in terms of making decisions in light of particular principles?  (Moral decisionism focusses on choosing the right course of action by applying the right principle rather than exploring how to develop a virtuous character.  Western ethics in Modernity tried to identify a principle for making decisions: Kant’s categorical imperative of being able to universalise an action [if it is right for me, it has to be right for everyone], the Utilitarian’s principle of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people, the Situation Ethicist’s claim that one will know the ‘loving thing’ to do when in the situation, without being told.)
*What individual virtues apply to Christians?  Paul speaks of 'gifts' rather than virtues, implying (a) human fallenness requires God's grace and (b) the development of human virtue requires God's grace.
*How should we rank the virtues (which are primary and which secondary)?  Classical Greek philosophy spoke of ‘cardinal’ virtues (prudence, courage, temperance, and justice) that headed the list of virtues.  Aquinas added the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love.  How do different societies rank the virtues and define them?

3. Tradition.  Different crafts have different ends, values, virtues, obligations, rules, and actions.  There are even secrets kept by craftsmen for how they produce their craft (hence the title 'mister' [mystery] for a craftsman).  Similarly, many ethicists argue, ethics are not universal but pertain to a certain tradition (cf. Alisdair MacIntyre’s asking ‘Whose Justice?’).  Ethics is not first a question of what we should do but of who we should be.  This different way of doing ethics opens up new ways to speak about the use of Biblical authority for the Christian tradition: emphasis is placed not simply on rules for what we should do, as important as these are for all defined communities, but also on how Scripture defines our tradition and community (rules/norms, actions, goals, virtues, principles, values, paradigms and narratives, and worldview, etc.).
Narrative ethics emphasises the relation between the tradition and the ethic that derives from within that tradition.  E.g., 'abortion' under discussion in America (women's rights), Russia (worker, community), and China (over population).
Communication practised in the Christian Tradition:
* Reporting is not only reporting news; it is uncovering a tradition's assumed narrative and understanding how its virtues operate within that narrative and tradition.  Christian reporting will uncover the assumed tradition of society and challenge this with Christian tradition.
*How will being a member of a Christian community guide one to pursue certain stories/information and not others?  Tradition establishes agenda for enquiry.
*How will being a member of a Christian community guide one to communicate material a certain way?
How does our Christian tradition determine how we engage in development work?

4. Community. Even the same craft might be practised differently by different guilds.  'This is how we do things here.'  Ethics involves being shaped by and for a given community.  Aristotle's ethics (cf. Plato's Republic) prepares people to live within the Greek city state; his virtues are those befitting such a society.
*What does it mean to practice Christian development work within a Christian community, and how does development work with its virtues play a role in larger society?
*What does it mean to practice development work as a member of a Christian community while living in larger (supportive, hostile, indifferent?) society?  H. Richard Niebuhr spoke of five models for the relation of Church and State: Christ against culture, Christ of culture, Christ and culture in paradox, Christ over culture, and Christ transforming culture.  What socio-political and theological factors come into play to direct our Christian involvement in society?
*What does it mean to practice one's craft within a guild/community?  Paul speaks of different gifts within the community, and seeking the good of the church community in practising one's gifts (1 Cor. 12-14).  Stanley Hauerwas says that the Church does not have a social ethic, it is a social ethic.  Many Christian ethicists like to speak of Kingdom ethics to capture the socio-political nature of Christian ethics (over against simply a personal ethic).  What is the correct understanding of the Kingdom of God, and how does it form a particular community?  (Cf. the Sermon on the Mount in Mt. 5-7.)

5. Friendship.  Aristotle discusses ethics primarily in terms of 'virtues' (Nichomachean Ethics, 2 - 7) and 'friendship' (8 - 9).  (Friendship is another aspect of life in community, and so it is mentioned here.  As an approach to ethics, it overlaps with a virtue ethic.)  Aristotle discusses three types of friendship: friendship for utility, pleasure, and of good people.  Virtue and friendship are related in the last instance of friendship: 'complete friendship is the friendship of good people similar in virtue' (NE, 9.35).  Aristotle also discusses friendship in families (cf. the NT's household codes).  Obligation derives from the friendships (relationships) we have.
Components of friendship (Aristotle): (1) doing things for the other's good (goodwill, concord, active and unselfish benevolence, self-love [loving a friend who is most a friend, a basis for making costly sacrifices for others]; (2) wishing the friend to be and live for his/her own sake; (3) spending time together; (4) making the same choices; (5) sharing in each other's distress and enjoyment (NE, 11.11).  Cf. Rom. 12.1-18.
*Some cultures emphasise friendship as a basis for relationships of all sorts: political leaders are 'benefactors' and parent figures; contracts are more oral than written and friendship is the basis of the relationship more than legal documents; tipping and bribery are aspects of relationships rather than legality.
*How does mission practice relate to 'friendship' and 'community' with respect to the church and society as a whole?

6. Apprenticeship.  Those being initiated into a craft undergo an apprenticeship.  There is a need for a teacher or mentor.  Apprentices need models of good craftsmen and crafstmenship.  There is much to learn, although knowledge counts for little in ethics (it counts for much in crafts).  Rather, ethics has more to do with desiring and deciding to do the virtuous thing and with shaping one's character (h;qoj).  Character is shaped by a certain collection and hierarchy of virtues, and virtues are gained through habits ((e;qoj), which are gained through repeated action (Aristotle, NE, 2.1).  In addition, there is also an artistic feel, gained over time, for a given trade.  Virtues of character are acquired through early habituation of one's desires, feelings, pleasures and pains (NE, 1104b11, 1179b24).  To a large extent, ethics is like a craft in requiring these features of an apprenticeship.
The NT barely uses the word 'virtue'.  Paul speaks of 'righteousness' or 'fruit of the Spirit'.  Perhaps 'virtues' that one gains by oneself take too much emphasis off of what God accomplishes by his grace in us through Christ and the Spirit.  Jonathan Edwards spoke of this work of God in terms of an 'awakening'.  And yet 'righteousness' is not immediate: there is an 'already/not yet' aspect to Christian living between the first and second coming of Christ (cf. Phl. 3.12ff).  So, how do Christians 'train in godliness' (1 Tim. 4.7--here: teaching, example, Scripture reading, use of a gift for the church; cf. the 'theological virtues' of faith, love, and hope--e.g., 1 Th. 5.8)?  How do they develop 'holy or religious affections' (Jonathan Edwards: 'If we take the Scriptures for our rule, then the greater and higher our exercises of love to God, delight and complacency in him, desires and longings after him, delight in his children, love to mankind, brokenness of heart, abhorrence of sin, and self-abhorrence for it; the more we have of the peace of God which passeth all understanding, and joy in the Holy Ghost, unspeakable and full of glory; the higher our admiring thoughts of God, exulting and glorying in him; so much the higher is Christ’s religion, or that virtue which he and his apostles taught, raised in the soul' (Thoughts on the Revival I.II.I))?
Narrative ethics emphasises the importance of living in community to be able to visualise the embodiment of that narrative.  Role morality notes the importance of taking on a role within a community in order to learn, improve, and be shaped by the community's expectations and needs from one in that role.  Paul struggles with how to define his apostolic role, preferring to understand this not in terms of 'leadership' but 'service', because the model for his ethic is Jesus Christ.
            *What sort of apprenticeship is required for mission practice?
*What sort of education in virtue is needed for our children?  (Take faith, hope and love as the virtues for discussion.)  What action steps will we need to take to train children and youth in Christian virtues?
*How do we learn to practice (as in craftsmanship) love, forgiveness, reconciliation?  How does mission practice place us in the role of apprenticeship in these virtues (or put us at odds with them!)?

7. Practices.  Craftsmanship is about practice of a trade, with the understanding that there is an art to each trade.  When speaking of a Christian interest in 'reconciliation,' e.g., we may be concerned about troubled spots on the globe or broken marriages and relationships.  Yet there is more than an interest in the same product at stake in ethics: much of ethics is about the way in which this people practices what occupies them.  Narrative ethicists such as Stanley Hauerwas are concerned to describe the practices of those in the peaceable kingdom of God.  As Christians concern themselves with reconciliation, how will Christian practice of this differ from what others mean by the same term?  One example, whether lauded or derided today, is that of the medieval Catholic penitentials laying out a way to practice reconciliation to God and the church.  This involved sorrow and repentance, acts of contrition, forgiveness, absolution, restoration--more than just saying 'sorry.'  A Pauline understanding of reconciliation involves one's relationship with God: he did not expect those outside Christ to practice it (e.g., Tit. 3.3-7; Eph. 2.1-10).  Ethics has to do with understanding not only how a community's narrative outlines a unique virtue ethic but also how a community's practices help develop and demonstrate these virtues (e.g., love and the practice of forgiveness, reconciliation, hospitality, humility).
*Mission practice is an ethic: what sort of people are we becoming in the practice of our mission?  How does this practice relate to the narrative and virtues of our Christian community?

8. Rules.  Every society needs rules.  This removes the challenge to think and rethink ethics in the face of every decision and challenge, and it allows the community to define character and ends in terms of concrete rules (e.g., education, law).
*What rules define relationships so that they can work well in the community (e.g., rules for children and their elders, injury, marriage, property, truthfulness, greed, etc.)

*What rules will help the specific relationships in ministry and missions?

Peddling Dangerous Nonsense: James K. A. Smith on the Meaning of ‘Orthodoxy’

Introduction

One of the ways to undermine orthodox Christianity’s stance against the sexual perversions of contemporary, Western society and the disappearing mainline denominations in the West revolves around the word ‘orthodox.’  The argument goes that orthodoxy is all about affirmations in the early Church, ecumenical councils, which do not mention anything about homosexuality—or sexuality in general.  So, goes the argument, there is no orthodox teaching on sexuality.

Smith’s Argument

James K. A. Smith—and he is not the only one with this argument—has recently put the argument to print.[1]  He says,

Historically, the measure of "orthodox" Christianity has been conciliar; that is, orthodoxy was rooted in, and measured by, the ecumenical councils and creeds of the church (Nicea [sic], Chalcedon) which were understood to have distilled the grammar of "right belief" (ortho, doxa) in the Scriptures.  As such, orthodoxy centers around the nature of God (Triune), the Incarnation, the means of our salvation, the church, and the life to come.  The markers of orthodoxy are tied to the affirmations of, say, the Nicene Creed: the creatorhood of God; the divine/human nature of the Incarnate Son; the virgin birth; the historicity of Jesus' life and death; the affirmation of his bodily resurrection and ascension; the hope of the second coming; the triune affirmation of Father, Son, and Spirit; the affirmation of "one holy catholic and apostolic church"; one baptism; and the hope of our own bodily resurrection.

Smith later avers,

If "orthodox" becomes an adjective that is unhooked from these conciliar canons, then it becomes a word we use to make sacrosanct the things that matter to "us" in order to exclude "them."  And then you can start folding all kinds of things into "orthodoxy" like mode of baptism or pre-tribulation rapture or opposition to the ordination of women--which then entails writing off swaths of Christians who affirm conciliar orthodoxy.

Thus, Smith seems to think that, if we extend the meaning of orthodoxy to other, traditionally held convictions of the Church, then it will be a way to say, simply, ‘I don’t like your teaching,’ without any basis in ecclesiastically defined and authoritative teaching.  He asks, ‘Do you really want to claim that Christians who affirm all of the historic markers of orthodoxy but disagree with you on matters of sexual morality or nonviolence or women in office are heretics?’[2]  He also challenges the supposed selectivity when the meaning of ‘orthodox’ is broadened: why this matter but not that one?

In Reply

While Smith is commendably concerned to affirm orthodoxy and not let it become soft from too much stretching, he is decidedly mistaken—seriously in error.  I would suggest the following points to consider.

First, those applying the term ‘orthodoxy’ to matters of sexual ethics do so to indicate that such matters fit, like the early Church councils, the universal affirmations of the Church and the teaching of Scripture.  (a) The Church councils affirmed orthodoxy, they did not define it.  What was ‘orthodox’ was what all the Church had always and everywhere affirmed.  As St. Vincent of Lerins (d. 445) says,

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors (Commonitory 2.6).

If the Church Councils defined orthodoxy rather than affirmed it, then we would be in the peculiar situation of having to say that there was no orthodoxy until the 4th century (the first council, Nicaea, being in 325).  We would also have to discount all the ‘orthodox’ writings of the Church Fathers other than what emerged in the conciliar canons. The whole purpose of the ‘ecumenical’ (universal) councils was to find where the Church agreed: everywhere, always, and by all.  Thus, ‘orthodox’ has to do with this principle as articulated by St. Vincent and is not limited to specific statements in response to specific heresies that needed countering in the 4th century councils and creeds.  The principle articulated here—that by St. Vincent of Lerins (d. 445) in his Commonitory (2.4-6) of ‘everywhere, always, and by all’, or ‘universality, antiquity, and consent’—is stated as a principle to be applied to anything arising in opposition to orthodoxy.  It is a principle that could help the Church ‘discover’ what is orthodox when new heresies threatening the Church emerged.

This was, furthermore, St. Vincent’s second criterion for orthodoxy: the affirmation of the Catholic (i.e., universal) Church.  (b) His first criterion for orthodoxy was the authority of the Divine Law—that is, Scripture.  He says,

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church (Commonitory 2.4).

We cannot agree, then, with the notion that ‘orthodoxy’ is limited to creedal statements emerging from the ecumenical councils.  This is a limitation that early Christians themselves would have rejected.  

Indeed, previous arguments for an orthodox Christianity in the 2nd century, called for (a) reliance on the Scriptures (which is why the definition of the canon was so important—that what was God’s Word would be defined and its limits set), (b) an affirmation and guidance by the ‘Rule of Faith’ (the emerging creed), and (c) the consensual affirmations of bishops from apostolically founded churches (‘apostolic succession’).  Such, e.g., was Tertullian’s argument at the end of the 2nd century (Prescriptions Against Heretics)—as also Irenaeus in his magnum opus, Against Heresies.  On the latter, mind, Irenaeus had a host of heretical groups to oppose, including those touting a sexually perverse doctrine of one sort or another.  Irenaeus would find Smith’s suggestion as to what constitutes ‘orthodoxy’ to be a step backward and over the cliff.  If orthodoxy were applied only to certain doctrinal affirmations and not also to the Church’s ethics—including sexual ethics—then Irenaeus’ defense of orthodoxy over against these heresies becomes incomprehensible.

Second, Smith’s reductionist definition of ‘orthodoxy’ undermines Biblical teaching.  He offers an alternative term for matters not addressed in the ecumenical councils: ‘traditional’.  So, are we really to say that teaching articulated in Scripture in the strongest of terms but that is not repeated in the creeds of the 4th century (for contextual reasons, of course) is merely ‘traditional’ and not ‘orthodox’?  Can anyone dispute that the following passage from Scripture fails to articulate a distinction between orthodoxy and heresy as to both doctrinal and ethical—sexual—matters?

2 Peter 2:1-2 (ESV) But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them-- bringing swift destruction on themselves.  2 Even so, many will follow their licentious ways, and because of these teachers the way of truth will be maligned.

Similarly, Jude calls the recipients of his letter to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (v. 3) and then proceeds to warn against the false teaching of a group affirming Sodom’s sin (which is clearly a sexual sin in this verse, even if the sins of Sodom were many):

Jude 1:7 (ESV) Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Moreover, are we really being asked to exclude sexual ethics from orthodoxy when Paul says that those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God? (1 Corinthians 6.9-10).  On Smith’s reckoning, the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, soft men, homosexuals, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers who will not inherit the Kingdom of God may well be orthodox Christians affirming the creeds.  May God help us!

Third, Smith’s example of ‘baptism’ being snuck into a debate about orthodoxy rather makes the alternative argument than the one he suggests.  If we can find varied practice in early Church orthodox circles, then we are surely not talking about a matter that is definitive for orthodoxy.  And that is precisely what we do find on this matter of baptism.  Tertullian’s defense of adult baptism at the end of the 2nd century is surely offered to counter an alternative practice of infant (cf. his ‘On Baptism’).  There is meagre but significant evidence from the early Church that there were varied practices and perhaps theologies of baptism.  There is no danger of introducing baptism into a definition of orthodoxy, and that precisely because the early Church did not have a single practice of baptism that was universal, ancient, and consensual.

Fourth, just what is Smith up to?  An affirmation of orthodox creeds from the early Church is most welcome.  But in the present climate of mainline denominations imploding precisely because they reject Scripture and oppose the Church’s universal, ancient, and consensual teaching on sexuality, Smith’s argument showers upon the context like flammable liquid on a fire.  One simply cannot approach theology in this unorthodox, heretical context with an argument that we need to limit our understanding of ‘orthodoxy’ to the particular matters that came to expression in the 4th century context.  His argument does not stand for the early Church, but it is also an argument that waltzes into the battle zone of our own time as though dance form is more important than the present danger.

Conclusion

We have responded here to an attempt to side-step the seriousness of contemporary, Western softening of the Church’s teaching on sexuality by claiming that it is not a matter of ‘orthodoxy.’  The argument countered here would have us define orthodoxy narrowly so that it refers only to conciliar councils.  Yet we have seen that this will not stand up to a Biblical or early Church understanding of orthodoxy.  Instead, we have affirmed a definition of orthodoxy as articulated by St. Vincent of Lerins that is based on (1) Scripture as God’s Law and (2) the universal, ancient, and consensual teaching of the Church.  On these criteria, the Church’s teaching that homosexuality is a sin is a matter of Christian orthodoxy.[3]


[1] James K. A. Smith, ‘On "orthodox Christianity": some observations, and a couple of questions,’ Fox Clavigera blog (August 4, 2017).  Online: http://forsclavigera.blogspot.co.za/2017/08/on-orthodox-christianity-some.html; accessed 5 September, 2017.

[2] This question confuses issues.  How shall we equate the sin of sexual morality, which has to do with entering the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6.9-10), with advice on church polity (women in office)?  Let us say that one should not ordain women, for argument’s sake.  There is no Biblical basis to say that this is a matter so pressing as entry into the Kingdom.  At most, one might say that it is a practice set up to protect the Church from error, like not ordaining someone who is the husband of more than one wife (i.e., remarried) (1 Timothy 2.10-3.13).
[3] See S. Donald Fortson and Rollin G. Grams, Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (Nashville, TN: B&H Pub., 2016).

Israel and the People of God in Early Christianity

This is a replication of a published article:

‘‘Not My People?’ Israel and the People of God in Early Christianity.’  In First the Kingdom of God: A Festschrift in Honor of Professor Dr. Peter Kuzmic.  Ed. Miroslav Volf, Corneliu Constantineanu, Marcel V. Măcelaru, KreÅ¡imir Å imić. Regnum Press and Wipf & Stock, 2011.  ISBN: 978-953-6110-14-8.

Introduction:

The 1998 Vatican document presented by Cardinal Edward Cassidy, ‘We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah,’ observes that ‘the fact that the Shoah [Holocaust] took place in Europe, that is, in countries of long-standing Christian civilization, raises the question of the relation between the Nazi persecution and the attitudes down the centuries of Christians towards the Jews’ (n. II).[1] The document acknowledges that some Christians have, in the history of the Church in Europe, mistreated and persecuted the Jews, and not done all that they could to oppose anti-Semitism.[2]  The ‘We Remember’ document is intended as an expression of repentance by the Catholic Church and a resolve ‘to build a new future in which there will be no more anti-Judaism among Christians or anti-Christian sentiment among Jews, but rather a shared mutual respect, as befits those who adore the one Creator and Lord and have a common father in faith, Abraham.’
Pope John-Paul II stated in his 1999 Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Europa that the Church and the Jewish people were united in that the covenant God made with Israel was, as Paul stated in Rom. 11.29, irrevocable, and it is the same covenant that has reached its fulfillment in Christ (56).  The same document distinguishes this conviction from religious relativism, which sees religion of one sort to be as good as another.  On the contrary, the Church has a mission to all peoples (55).

The present essay begins by noting that western, orthodox, Christian[3] writers of the second, third, and early fourth centuries held that Israel had been replaced by the Church as God’s people.  (The cut-off date for this study is when Christianity gained privileges under Emperor Constantine.)  The question that I will pursue is, ‘What Scriptural (Old Testament) justification did these writers give for their views about the Jews?’  This was not the view of the ethnically Jewish New Testament writers.  In Mt. 23.38-39, Jesus pronounces the same judgement of desolation on Jerusalem or Israel that the prophets did (Is. 1.7; Jer. 26.9; Ez. 6; 14.15f; Joel 2.3; Mic. 6.13; Zech. 7.14) but with same expectation that one day she would receive the Lord.  Rom. 11.25-29 quotes Is. 59.20 with the hope that, despite her past sinfulness, all Israel would be saved.  Luke lets stand the question of the disciples after the resurrection, ‘Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?’ (Acts 1.6; cf. Lk. 2.25).  Also, following on the view of the Old Testament, New Testament authors work with the Old Testament view that the righteous are only a part of the covenant community.  There is a righteous remnant within Israel (Rom. 9.27), an Israel of God (Gal. 6.16).  While not all Jews believed in Jesus, many did (Jn. 12.42).  All the New Testament authors are Jewish, and the critique of Judaism is one well-known from the Old Testament prophets; it is an internal critique and not an attack on another ethnic group.  To be sure, for Christians, the world comes to be divided between followers of Christ and everyone else, but New Testament writers still see Israel as God’s covenant people.  Indeed, Paul weeps for them because they, as God’s covenant people, are rejecting God’s salvation (Rom. 9.1-5).  The covenant, like the root of a tree, remains, even if branches are to be grafted in (Gentiles) or pruned off (unbelieving Jews) (Rom. 11.16-24).

How, then, is it that in the Patristic period we find the conviction that the Jews were no longer God’s covenant people?  At least, such are many of the statements, although there are certain noteworthy exceptions.  This paper will explore this question by looking at how these Christian authors used the common Scriptures, the Old Testament, to make their case (New Testament passages will seldom be presented).  I will examine this under five headings:
      Proof from Scripture that Israel was no longer the people of God
      Proof from Scripture that Israel was sinful
      Christians rightly understand the Law
      Scripture foretells the demise of Israel
      Proof from Scripture that Israel has been replaced by the Church

Argument 1: Proof From Scripture that Israel was No Longer the People of God

Clement of Alexandria, writing in the latter part of the 2nd century, might be quoted as representative of the early Christian position that Israel was no longer the people of God (Instructor 2.8):[4]

For being hard of heart, they understood not that this very thing, which they called the disgrace of the Lord, was a prophecy wisely uttered: "The Lord was not known by the people" [Is. 1.3] which erred, which was not circumcised in understanding, whose darkness was not enlightened, which knew not God, denied the Lord, forfeited the place of the true Israel, persecuted God, hoped to reduce the Word to disgrace; and Him whom they crucified as a malefactor they crowned as a king.

Tertullian also argued from Scripture that Israel would reject God (Jer. 2.10-12; Is. 65.13-16 LXX; An Answer to the Jews, sect. 3), that God’s blessing or Spirit would be taken from Israel: Is. 3.1, 3; 5.1ff (sect. 13), and that Christ asked God to disperse Israel (Ps. 59.11; sect. 13).

Minucius Felix (mid-2nd century or early 3rd century) claims that Scripture demonstrates that Israel deserves her present fortune because of her obstinacy (Octavius 33).  The Jews, he concludes, ‘were given up by God as deserters from His discipline.’

Commodianus (mid-third century African bishop) references Isaiah 6.10 in his argument that Israel was hard-hearted and rejected the Law, as also in the time of Moses (Ex. 32).  Thus God rejected her (Instructions 38).

The criticism of Judaism, of course, does not begin with Christians; it begins within Judaism itself.  It is a critique found most especially in the prophets, who separate out the unrighteous, idolatrous Jews from the righteous remnant.  Jewish self-critique was also found in the 1st century, particularly in Qumran, which separated itself from the unrighteous of Israelite society, had nothing to do with the Temple, and predicted a coming judgement.  Such a critique is very similar to that of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the early Church—all themselves Jews.  From the 4th century, Christian critique of Judaism seems to have taken on darker forms.[5] 

Yet when such a critique is voiced by Gentile Christians, when it is voiced within a fairly anti-Jewish Roman Empire,[6] when it is stated that the Jews killed Jesus, and when Jewish suffering is said to be the result of the Jews’ crucifying Jesus, criticism of Judaism is quite different from that within Judaism.  Language such as ‘Christkillers’ (Ignatius, Magnesians 11.1 long; cf. Philadelphians 6.1 long), ‘fighters against God, those murderers of the Lord’ (Ignatius, Thrallians 11.2 long; cf. Melito, Peri Pascha (73-74, 93), and ‘Jews fighting against Christ’ (Smyrnaeans 2.1 long) seem to move the critique to a new level.

Still, for Ignatius, the key issue was not ethnicity but Christ versus Jewish law (Philadelphians 6.1).  Hippolytus  complains that the Ebionite sect lives according to the Jewish Law and believes that in it they are justified.  Jesus was made the Christ because he fulfilled the Law, and they too might become Christs by fulfilling the Law (Refutation of All Heresies 7.22).

For Cyprian, quoting Is. 1.15-20, salvation also comes to the Jews, just as to the Gentiles, albeit their repentance would need to include the specific sin of killing Jesus:

… by this alone the Jews could obtain pardon of their sins, if they wash away the blood of Christ slain in His baptism, and, passing over into the Church, should obey His precepts (Treatise 12.1.24).

Also significant for assessing this data is the fact that the Church was a persecuted minority, and Jews were at times involved.[7]  During the Jewish-Roman war of 132-135, the Jewish leader, Bar Cocheba, punished Christians who would not deny or blaspheme Christ (Justin, First Apology 31)—a practice already evident in the first century (Acts 9.2; 26.11; 2 Cor. 11.24; Gal. 1.13; 1 Cor. 15.9; 2 Cor. 5.16; Mk. 13.9 (Mt. 10.17; Lk. 12.11; 21.12; cf. Mt. 23.34); Jn. 16.2).[8]  Whatever the social dynamics for disagreement between Jews and Christians, the key debate was over how to interpret the authoritative Word of God that they both accepted.[9]

Argument 2: Proof From Scripture That Israel was Sinful

That the Jews have been sinful and have therefore lost their status as God’s people is a prevailing view.  They were variously said to be a sinful people, the most sinful people, idolaters (perhaps picking up the critique of the prophets), or the ones who murdered Christ.  Justin stated that Scripture foretold that the Jews would reject God’s salvation (Is. 1.3f; 66.1; 1.11-15; 58.6-7) (First Apology 38).  Clement of Alexandria illustrated modes of rebuke for the instructor almost wholly from passages where God rebukes Israel for her sins, with passages from Jeremiah and Is. 1often cited (Instructor 1.9).

That God rejected Israel due to her sinfulness is succinctly stated in Commodianus (Instructions 38):
Evil always, and recalcitrant, with a stiff neck … of hardened heart.  Ye look upon the law which Moses in wrath dashed to pieces [Ex. 32]; and the same Lord gave to him a second law.  In that he placed his hope; but ye, half healed, reject it, and therefore ye shall not be worthy of the kingdom of heaven.
Minucius Felix accepts that Israel did at times worship God, who is the same God of all.  But both Scripture and the writings of Flavius Josephus or Antoninus Julianus prove that they were wicked.  Thus they forsook before they were forsaken; they deserted God’s discipline (Octavius 33).  Irenaeus argues that the Jews’ sinfulness led to their rejection by God.  Their sinfulness culminated in slaying the Son of God (Against Heresies 4.36.2).
Tertullian (An Answer to the Jews) references various passages in Scripture that demonstrate the sinfulness of Israel and predict her exile, for example:
              Ex. 32 shows that Israel turned to idolatry
              Dt. 28.65ff predicts exile and agony for Israel
              Is. 1.2, 4, 7-8, 15 predicts Israel’s sin and destruction
              Is. 33.17 predicts Israel’s exile
              Is. 65.1, 13-16 states that Jews would forsake the Lord and others will serve Him
              Jer. 2.10-13 states that the Jews have exchanged their glory for something unprofitable,
                         forsaking God and pursuing idolatry
 Tertullian feels no need to locate these verses historically: rather, Scripture characterizes the Jews as forsaking God and foretells, in Is. 65.1-16, that others would serve him.
 Origen states unequivocally that the Jews’ sins are paramount, given their sin against Christ:[10]
  on account of their unbelief, and the other insults which they heaped upon Jesus, the Jews will not       only suffer more than others in that judgment which is believed to impend over the world, but have     even already endured such sufferings. For what nation is an exile from their own metropolis, and         from the place sacred to the worship of their fathers, save the Jews alone? And these calamities they   have suffered, because they were a most wicked nation, which, although guilty of many other sins,     yet has been punished so severely for none, as for those that were committed against our Jesus            (Contra Celsum 2.8).
 Cyprian’s Treatise 12 (book 1) is devoted to the question of the Jews as God’s people.  His approach in the treatise is simply to quote passages of Scripture under certain headings.[11]  He cites the following texts to demonstrate Israel’s sinfulness: Ex. 32; Jdg. 2.11-13; 4.1; Mal. 2.11; Jer. 7.25; 25.4, 6-7; 1 Kgs. 19.10; Neh. 9.26; Is. 1.2-4; 6.9-10; Jer. 2.13; 6.10; 8.7-9; Prov. 1.28-29; Ps. 28.4-5; 82.5.
 The sinfulness of the Jews culminates in their attitude towards Jesus Christ, according to Commodianus (Instructions 40). 
 There is not an unbelieving people such as yours.  O evil men! in so many places, and so often rebuked by the law of those who cry aloud.  And the lofty One despises your Sabbaths, and altogether rejects your universal monthly feasts according to law, that ye should not make to Him the commanded sacrifices; … that life was suspended on the tree, and [you] believe not on Him.  God Himself is the life; He Himself was suspended for us.  But ye with indurated heart insult Him.
This last quote points to two theological and exegetical problems with the discussion among the Church fathers.  First, there is the notion that the Jews are more sinful than other nations.  This is because they are blamed for Jesus’ death—an accusation not in the New Testament.  Perhaps, however, Paul’s presenting the extreme sinfulness of the Gentiles before the sinfulness of the Jews in his argument in Romans sets the proper tone for Christian thinking about the Jews.  Rom. 1.18-3.26 makes the argument that Jews and Gentiles are equally culpable for their sins, not that the Jews are more sinful.  Second, Commodianus expresses the view that the practices of Judaism that mark them off as a particular people are odious before God.  While this can be argued from Scripture (Is. 1.11-14 is probably alluded to here), this is again not the New Testament perspective (e.g., 1 Cor. 9.20; Gal. 5.6; 6.15; Rom. 14.1ff; etc.).

The prophets’ indictment of Israel for her sinfulness applied to particular times, but the early Christian writers still applied these passages to the Jews of their day.  They could use numerous passages to make the case that the Jews were sinful, and all they needed to do was add that their sin reached new heights in putting Christ to death.  Among the texts cited, Is. 1.2ff may have been the most often referenced.  The early Christians who cited such texts against the Jews did not point out the hope that those texts offered for an Israel restored after their sin and exile, as Paul does in Rom. 11.25-29.

Argument 3: Christians Rightly Understand The Law

On the issue of the Law, several perspectives can be identified in the patristic sources.  The primary argument of interest here—one well attested in the texts—is that the Law needs to be read ‘spiritually’ rather than literally.  Some argue that this is a development in light of the movement of salvation history, while others, more critical of the Jews, argue that the Laws should never have been followed literally.

Early in the second century, Ignatius advocated that the progression of salvation history meant a different attitude towards the Law:

"Old things are passed away: behold, all things have become new." For if we still live according to the Jewish law, and the circumcision of the flesh, we deny that we have received grace (Magnesians 8.1 long)

The prophets were His servants, and foresaw Him by the Spirit, and waited for Him as their Teacher, and expected Him as their Lord and Savior, saying, "He will come and save us." Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat” (Magnesians 9.2 long).

Also in the early 2nd century, Aristides wrote:

And in their imagination they conceive that it is God they serve; whereas by their mode of observance it is to the angels and not to God that their service is rendered:--as when they celebrate sabbaths and the beginning of the months, and feasts of unleavened bread, and a great fast; and fasting and circumcision and the purification of meats, which things, however, they do not observe perfectly (Apology 14).

Another early 2nd century writer, in the Epistle to Diognetus, sees Jewish religious practices as virtual idolatry.  The key to such an argument is that a literal interpretation is believed to lean in this direction:

 But those who imagine that, by means of blood, and the smoke of sacrifices and burnt-offerings they offer sacrifices [acceptable] to Him, and that by such honours they show Him respect: these, by supposing that they can give anything to Him who stands in need of nothing, appear to me in no respect to differ from those who studiously confer the same honour on things destitute of sense.... (3).

The author of this epistle simply takes Jewish food laws, Sabbaths, boasting, circumcision, fastings, and new moons to be ridiculous (4).  No Scriptural argument is proffered.  The ease with which these are dismissed suggests that the Jews are not the author's concern so much as making the argument that Christians 'are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor customs which they observe.  For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech....' (5).

And yet another early 2nd century author, in the Epistle of Barnabas, argued that the Scriptures should not be read literally but typologically, for we live in the last days (6).  This argument could be stated in one of two way, and Barnabas employs them both:

*A literal reading is said to be a misreading of Scripture, as when Barnabas insists that a circumcision of the flesh was never God’s intent but in fact a deception by an evil angel (9).  Circumcision was always to be understood spiritually—as a circumcision of the heart (Jer. 4.4; Dt. 10.16).  Barnabas also argues this point allegorically: Abraham's circumcision of 318 men (confusing Gen. 17.26f and 14.14) points to Christ, since ten and eight are written with the first two Greek letters of Jesus’ name ('I' and 'H') and 300 is the written with the Greek letter 'T', representing by its shape the cross of Christ.  Various foods are interpreted as characters with whom one should not associate (10). 

*A literal reading is said to be no longer the right reading of Scripture, as when Barnabas says that Jewish sacrifices were already abolished by the prophets (Is. 1.11-14; Jer. 7.22; Zech. 8.17; Ps. 51.19) (2).

The spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament in general clarified the distinction between Jews and Christians, as we find in Melito of Sardis’s Paschal Sermon (39-45):

              Earthly                                                                          Heavenly or Spiritual

              The Jewish people                                                     The Church
              The Law                                                                       The Gospel
              Sacrifice of sheep                                                       The life of the Lord
              Temple                                                                        Christ
              Earthly Jerusalem                                                      Heavenly Jerusalem
              Meagre inheritance in one place                            Abundant grace throughout the world

A spiritual interpretation of Israel’s Law was considered to be superior (Origen, Contra Celsum 4.49).  It is not that the Church needed a spiritual interpretation of the OT in order to ‘save’ the Scriptures for the Church, although this is a result of the argument.  Rather, it suggests that interpretation is better when it uncovers the spiritual meaning.  The Jews’ literal following of the Law was therefore an example of bad exegesis.

The notion of a hermeneutical progression, from literal to spiritual, can be found in various authors of the second and third centuries: that the spiritual reading should always have been preferred is not the only argument.  Justin Martyr, while he allowed that some Christians hold to the Jewish regulations (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 47), argued that nobody now obeys all the Mosaic Law since one cannot offer the paschal lamb (46).  Moreover, he avers, the Mosaic Law was given because of Israel's hardness of heart--to remind them constantly of God through the many precepts (19).  However, Christ replaced the Law, as Is. 51.4-5 and Jer. 31.31f state (11).  The laws on circumcision, foods, sabbaths, sacrifices and oblations were instituted because of the Jews’ unrighteousness and idolatries, to divert them from the practices of the nations around them, not because there was any necessity for such sacrifices (19-22). 

Clement of Alexandria actually argues that the Law was good.  It was better than the laws of the Greeks, although something better in Christ has now come (Stromata 1.27).

Tertullian argued that, on the one hand, the Mosaic Law was prefigured in the command that God gave to Adam and Eve while, on the other hand, there were righteous persons (Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek) who were so without the Mosaic Law (An Answer to the Jews 2).  He believed that a shift from a temporal or carnal reading of the Law to an eternal or spiritual reading took place when, through Jesus, a new covenant was given and the spiritual came (An Answer to the Jews 6).  Thus he argues that the 10 Commandments were enclosed as seeds in the Adamic Law, and natural law prevailed until Moses (e.g., Noah was found righteous).  The Mosaic Law also had its place in time, but God 'reforms the law's precepts answerably to the circumstances of the times, with a view to man's salvation' (2).  It was a temporal mirror of the new law in the new covenant, which is eternal.  Jer. 31.31ff promised a new law, a new circumcision.  With the abolition of the old Law and circumcision also went Sabbath observance (4). 

Even so, Tertullian advanced the argument that prior to Jesus Jewish regulations were not acceptable to God.  The prophets bore witness that God hated the Jews' Sabbaths (Is. 1.13), as we already read in Genesis regarding Cain’s (Israel’s) sacrifice and Abel’s (Christians’) sacrifice (5). 

The Didascalia Apostolorum suggests that the first law of Moses contained only the ten commandments, but the second law given to Moses contained all the additional stipulations regarding food, sacrifices, and circumcision on account of Israel’s idolatry (26.6.16-17).  Unlike the first (Ezek. 20.9-11), the second was not good (Ezek. 20.25) (26.6.18).  Christ has taken away our idolatry, and so too these laws (so Mt. 11.28).  The prophets’ statements about Israel’s practices attest to this (Jer. 6.20; 7.21-22; Is. 1.11-14) (26.6.17).

Like Justin, Origen acknowledged that some Christians followed the Jewish laws (Contra Celsum V.61), but the superior reading of the Scripture was allegorical (4.49).  Christians thereby penetrated to the Law’s deeper meaning (2.4; 5.60, with reference to 2 Cor. 3). With reference to Jn. 16.12-13 and Acts 10.13-15, he argued that the coming of the Spirit after Jesus’ death and resurrection allowed a spiritual understanding of the Law (2.2)With Jesus’ coming, Jewish Scriptures could now be clearly interpreted (4.42).  The Law, indeed, had both a literal and a spiritual understanding (7.20), but the literal interpretation has come to an end with the end of Israel’s governmental authority, the Temple, and the Jews’ presence in Jerusalem (7.26).

Origen adds a new piece to the argument: the expansion of the Gospel beyond Israel’s borders to all nations requires that the Law no longer be taken literally.  The Jews cannot practice laws requiring them to be in the land of Israel and offering sacrifices at the Temple.  The laws on capital punishment or the practice of warfare no longer apply when God’s people have no land or civil government (Contra Celsum 7.26).  Moreover, Jewish Law ended for the purpose of universal mission, as Jesus (Mk. 7.18f), Paul (1 Cor. 8.8), and the meeting of the apostles and elders (Acts 15) declared (Contra Celsum 8.29).

At the beginning of the third century, Novatian wrote three treatises for Christians against Jewish practices of circumcision, the Sabbath, and food regulations.  Of these, only that on food regulations has survived.  In it we encounter the view that Jewish regulations set the Jews apart from and above others: the Law leads to boasting and, as a Jewish system, it is seen as a problem for a universal mission.  So much emphasis on Jewish sinfulness because of the Law runs through the writings of the early Christian authors that Novatian’s argument is noteworthy: ‘They consider that they only are holy, and that all others are defiled’ (On Jewish Meats, 1).

Like a number of other Christian authors at the time, Novatian advocated a spiritual interpretation of Jewish food laws: ‘Thus in the animals, by the law, as it were, a certain mirror of human life is established…’ (On Jewish Meats 3).  For example,

what does the law mean when it says, “Thou shalt not eat the camel?—except that by the example of that animal it condemns a life nerveless and crooked with crimes. Or when it forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice, placing its supreme good not in generosity of mind, but in the flesh alone. Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women. And who would use the body of the weasel for food? But in this case it reproves theft (On Jewish Meats 3).

With Novatian, not much is left of the notion of an unfolding salvation history.  Quite simply, he argues, the Jews failed to see that the Law was meant to be interpreted spiritually (2, with reference to Rom. 7.14—a misunderstanding of the text).  Even Rom. 10.4 is interpreted as Christ’s coming to disclose the Law’s spiritual meaning (4), although later Novatian argues (with mostly New Testament quotes, but also Dt. 8.3 and Zech. 7.6 LXX) that the literal Law no longer applies (5).

Regarding the Law, Cyprian (Treatise 12.1) argues from the Scriptures that only after Christ came would the Scriptures be understood: Is. 29.11-18; Jer. 23.20; Dn. 12.4-7; Is. 7.9; Jn. 8.24; Hab. 2.4; Gen. 15.6; Gal. 3.6-9.  After Christ came, sacrifices would be abolished: Is. 1.11-12; Ps. 50.13-15; Ps. 50.23; Ps. 4.5; Mal. 1.10-11;.  The priesthood too would be abolished after Christ’s coming (Ps. 110.3;  1 Sam. 2.35-36), and another prophet after Moses was to come: Dt. 18.18-19.

Perhaps the most positive assessment of the Law is to be found in Minucius Felix. As we have already noted, he argued against those who saw Jewish laws as superstitious customs and stated that God blessed them when they obeyed the Law (Octavius 33).

Argument 4: Scripture Foretells the Demise of Israel

Justin taught that, as a result of the Jews’ rejection of God’s salvation, the land of the Jews would be devastated (Is. 64.10-12; 1.7) (First Apology 47).  With Scriptural texts and 1st century history on their side, this was a typical Christian view of the period.

Clement of Alexandria’s interpretation of Daniel’s 70 weeks (Dn. 9.25-27) is that Israel was in captivity for one ‘week,’ after which the temple was rebuilt, existed until Christ for sixty-two weeks, was ruled by Christ for one week, and in the middle of that week he would cause the ‘incense of sacrifice cease’ (Stromata 1.21).

Tertullian finds proof in Dn. 9.25-27 that Jesus’ death is tied to Israel’s destruction (An Answer to the Jews 8, 13), as indeed it happened in the 1st century.  Amos 8.9, too, says that God would darken the earth at noon on the day of judgement for sinful Israel.  Since the Passover lambs were to be slaughtered at twilight (Ex. 12.6), the darkness during Jesus’ sacrificial death (Mt. 27.45 with Jn. 19.14) can be said to fulfil the passage in Amos.  But Amos 8.10 immediately adds, ‘I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation,’ and Tertullian interprets this as the Holy Spirit’s foretelling Israel’s captivity and dispersion after Jesus’ passion (An Answer to the Jews 10).  Jesus’ sacrificial suffering and Israel’s suffering in judgement are therefore related. Circumcision was given to the Jews so that they could be identified and not admitted to Jerusalem, and Isaiah 1.7-8 predicted the desolation of the land of Israel (An Answer to the Jews 3). 

Origen contrasts the transforming power of God among Christians (Contra Celsum 1.67) to the Greek myths and the absence of any evidence of Divine presence among the Jews, who have lost everything.  The Jews
were altogether abandoned, and possess now none of what were considered their ancient glories, so that there is no indication of any Divinity abiding amongst them. For they have no longer prophets nor miracles, traces of which to a considerable extent are still found among Christians, and some of them more remarkable than any that existed among the Jews; and these we ourselves have witnessed, if our testimony may be received (2.8; cf. 7.8).

Cyprian’s argument from Scripture that Israel would lose Jerusalem, the Temple, the land, and the light of the Lord includes the following passages: Is. 1.7-9 and Mt. 23.37-39; Is. 2.5-6; 2 Sam. 7.4, 5, 12-16 (Treatise 12.1).

Argument 5: Proof From Scripture That Israel Has Been Replaced by the Church

In the early fourth century, Lactantius states that, in the last times, the ‘religion of the true God and righteousness’ was made known to the nations but taken away from a ‘perfidious and ungrateful people’ (The Divine Institutes 4.2).[12]  This perspective runs throughout the Church Fathers of the second through early fourth centuries.

According to the Epistle of Barnabas (4), the Jewish loss of the covenant was foreshadowed when Moses' first covenant, written by the finger of God, was destroyed due to Israel's idolatry and had to be rewritten by Moses himself (Ex. 31.18; 34.28).[13]  Towards the end of ch. 4, the author states that Israel was abandoned, with a quotation from Mt. 20.16 or 22.14 ('many are called, but few are chosen') (cf. 13).  Abraham was imputed righteousness and became the father of nations through belief in the Lord while uncircumcised (13).

Justin argued that the Gentile mission was foretold in Scripture (Is. 2.3; Ps. 19.3-6; 1.1-6; 2.1-13; 96.1-13 (First Apology 39, 40, 41)).  However, while the Gentiles would worship the Messiah, the Jews would not (Is. 65.1-3; 5.20 (First Apology 39)).

Irenaeus interprets Jesus’ parable of the wicked tenants to be about the Jews rather than their leaders’ sinfulness, and the giving of the vineyard to others meant to the Gentiles.  They have been ‘justly rejected’.  He cites Jeremiah to show that their rejection (Jer. 7.28-29) and replacement (6.17-18) was foretold (Against Heresies 4.36.2).

Clement of Alexandria’s replacement theology involves reading Is. 54.1 as not about a restored Israel but a different people, Christians.  Verse 3 is read as ‘you have inherited the covenant of Israel’ where the text says that Israel’s descendents will possess the nations.  The result is that a text meant to assure Israel of God’s continued covenant faithfulness towards her is used to dispossess her (Stromata 2.6).

Tertullian argued that the Scripture speaks of a people who would obey God (Ps. 18.43-44; cf. 2 Sam. 22.44, 45 and Rom. 10.14-17; Hos. 1.10.), once they were brought out of error to the Lord God and Jesus Christ (Ps. 2.7-8 and Is. 42.6-7) (An Answer to the Jews 12).

But if Christ, as Jews maintained, is still to come, who is left in Israel to suffer?  The Romans had expelled the Jews from Israel. Similarly, while Mic. 5.2 predicted that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, no Jews are now there since their removal by the Romans.  The oil of anointing at the Temple can no longer be administered (Ex. 30.22-33).  Indeed, as predicted (Dn. 9.26), the city of Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed at the same time.  Thus the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple meant a fulfilment of prophecies and the impossibility of any future fulfilment concerning them.  That all this applied to the rejection of Jesus and the events from A.D. 70 seemed patently obvious.  The result was a ‘replacement theology’: the Church had replaced Israel in God’s salvation history.  Apparently (however, see below) no special covenant relationship remained between God and Israel, and no salvation could be found apart from Christ Jesus.

Origen’s argument about charismatic signs among Christians has already been noted: they serve as proof that Christians have replaced the Jews as God’s people.  Moreover, the whole Jewish nation was overthrown within a generation after Jesus (4.22):[14]

It accordingly behoved that city where Jesus underwent these sufferings to perish utterly, and the Jewish nation to be overthrown, and the invitation to happiness offered them by God to pass to others,--the Christians, I mean, to whom has come the doctrine of a pure and holy worship, and who have obtained new laws, in harmony with the established constitution in all countries; seeing those which were formerly imposed, as on a single nation which was ruled by princes of its own race and of similar manners, could not now be observed in all their entireness.

The Jews’ rejection of Jesus, Origen argues further, was predicted in Isaiah 6.10.  This passage already featured in Jesus’ explanation of his teaching in parables (Mk. 4.12; Mt. 13.13-15), the rejection of Jesus by the Jews (Jn. 12.40), and Paul’s dialogue with Jews in Rome (Acts 28.25-27)—it was a significant passage early on for Christians in the dialogue.

Cyprian (Treatise 12.1) argued that a second people (the Church) would come after the first (Israel) according to the Scriptures.  He references the incidents where the firstborn was replaced by the second in the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob’s two wives, Joseph’s sons, Elkanah and in Hos. 2.25 and 1.10 as well as 1 Sam. 2.5.  Commodianus’s list overlaps with Cyprian’s and includes Tamar’s twins (Gen. 38.27ff) and the sacrifices of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4) (Instructions 39).  This appears to be a fairly common argument among the early Christian writers,[15] already present in Paul as an example of how God works but not as a typology for Israel and the Church ((Rom. 9.7-9, 10-13).  Cyprian further quotes the following passages regarding the replacement of Israel: Is. 54.1-4; Gen. 12.1-3; Gen. 49.8-12; Num. 23.14; Dt. 28.43-44; Jer. 6.18; 1.5; Is. 55.4-5; 11.10; 11.1-2; 45.1; 66.18-19; 5.25-26; 52.15; 65.1, 13-16; 5.26-27; 3.1-2.

What is remarkable is that the early Christian writers believed that they were simply reading the text for what it said.  Only rarely will an author present an allegorical reading on this issue.[16] Only the laws (particularly regarding food) were best handled with a ‘spiritual’ interpretation (although we have not included an examination of a Christological reading of the Scriptures here).

And it was when attention to more careful exegesis was given, the early Christian writers backed away from a replacement theology.  Even though Christian writers accused the Jews as a nation of deicide, spoke of their suffering as well deserved, and saw the Church as a replacement of Israel as God’s people, the view that Israel was not wholly rejected could still arise.  Romans 11.23-31 was the key text requiring Christians to hold out hope for Israel, and so a different sentiment appears from authors commenting on this passage.  The following authors from the 5th and 6th c., in commenting on this passage, all accept that God’s grace will yet extend to the Jews: [17]  Chrysostom (later 4th century), Diodore (later 4th century), Ambrosiaster (later 4th century), Cyril of Alexandria (early 5th century), Pseudo-Constantius (5th c.), Pelagius (5th c.), Gennadius of Constantinople (5th c.), and Theodore of Cyr (5th century).

In the period surveyed here, while Origen claims ignorance as to the meaning of ‘all Israel’ in Rom. 11.26 (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans), the Didascalia Apostolorum (21.5.14-15) reflects on the hope of this passage in calling Christians to fast and pray during Holy Week that God would forgive the Jews, their ‘brothers,’ and that they would be forgiven and return to Jesus Christ.  Their exclusion has meant the inclusion of the Gentiles, who should mourn over Zion (Is. 66.10 and 61.1-2 are quoted).  The work also interprets Is. 9.1-2 with reference to both Jews and Gentiles who have believed.  Still, Is. 2.6; 3.8; and 5.6 are quoted to show that (now) God has withdrawn himself from Israel (23.6.5).  Thus what often sounds like a replacement theology in the Church fathers is not wholly so once Rom. 11.26-27 and restoration passages from the Old Testament are in view.

Conclusion

This ‘fact finding’ paper has reported on a number of works from the 2nd, 3rd, and early 4th centuries on what early Christians thought about Israel as God’s people.  There is certainly room for further research, but some conclusions do seem in order at this point.  The parting of the ways for Judaism and Christianity seems well established early on,[18]  and the typically acrimonious debate (less so Justin) centred on the interpretation of Scripture, whatever other issues may have existed.

A way forward might well be to re-examine the Scriptural argument.  Much of this examination will allow an exegetical examination of the many Old Testament texts that were cited.  Little allegorical interpretation arose on this issue of the people of God (that would change if the debate were broadened to consider the vaster amount of material regarding Christ in the Old Testament, a significant piece of the discussion left unexplored in this essay), although the hermeneutical question of a ‘spiritual’ reading does arise in regard to the meaning of the Law.  Exegetically, many texts cited by the Christian writers referred to Israel’s indictment centuries earlier prior to the exile, and little attention was typically given to those other passages that spoke of a redemption and restoration of Israel.

The above material also needs to be evaluated in the light of specific passages in the New Testament.  This part of the analysis has intentionally been omitted, since they are not shared Scriptures with the Jews.  However, when early Christian authors have to address a passage such as Rom. 11.25-29, they no longer argue for a replacement theology.  Otherwise, they do (the Didascalia Apostolorum being an exception, although it too has Rom. 11 in view).

A further matter to direct further research is Biblical theology.  What should Christians make of the Law?  What is a Biblical reading of Israel’s narrative?  Passages regarding Israel’s sinfulness in the days of the prophets are applied directly to the Jews of the Christian era, and the full narrative cycle in the Old Testament of election, sin, exile, and redemption is rather read as election, sin, exile, and replacement.

This outline for further study seems to be the right way forward if the Church today is to consider any role it may have played in an anti-Judaism over the centuries.  If we are to avoid a simplistic discussion of the matter, driven by our contemporary culture’s soft virtues of tolerance and equality that propel us towards a relativistic religious pluralism devoid of evangelism, we will need to engage the Biblical text with all earnestness.  Perhaps we will find ourselves fasting and praying, as the Didascalia Apostolorum exhorts, for our ‘brothers’, that they might find the life of the eternal covenant in the Redeemer from Zion (Is. 59.20).  And perhaps those Christian communities that believe in the cessation of the spiritual gifts and the replacement of Israel in God’s plan should consider Origen’s challenge: what evidence of the Divine presence is there among us?



[2] The situation is graphically illustrated in Osijek, Croatia, where a plaque in the centre commemorates the Jews, now absent, and the largest church of the Evangelical Church of Croatia meets in a still-standing synagogue in the lower city.  The Jews of the region were almost completely eliminated in the Holocaust.  For more detail, see ‘Osijek,’ in Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 12 (New York: MacMillan Reference: 1971), col. 1498.  Online at: http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/eu/jugoland/EncJud_juden-in-Osijek-ENGL.html (accessed 1 Feb., 2011).
[3] No attempt has been made to engage writings of the Syrian Church or western sects.  Neither have gospels, epistles, apocalypses and other writings grouped together as ‘New Testament apocrypha’ been consulted.
[4] Unless otherwise noted, all quotations will be from A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers, (Edinburgh, 1885).
[5] Cf. Guy Stroumsa, ‘From Anti-Judaism to Antisemitism in Early Christianity?’ in Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics Between Christians and Jews, eds. Ora Limar and Guy Stroumsa (Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 10; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996)pp. 21-22.  He references Ambrose, Chrysostom, Ephrem, and Cyril in particular.
[6] See primary source quotations in Louis Feldman and Meyer Reinhold, Jewish Life and Thought Among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1996).  See ch. 10: ‘Criticism and Hostility Towards Jews.’
[7] Note Martyrdom of Polycarp: the ‘Jews especially, according to custom, eagerly’ assisted in burning bishop Polycarp to death (13).
[8] Debate continues on when the 12th benediction, pronouncing a curse on the evil ones and Nazoreans, was instituted in Jewish synagogues—around AD 90 or later?  Justin seems to have this in mind when he writes that those Christians who continue to follow the Law will not be saved if they curse Christians in the synagogue (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 47).  The New Testament references, however, push the date of Jewish persecution of Christians in the synagogues to much earlier than the end of the 1st century--contrary to J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, rev. ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979; orig. pub. 1968), see the discussion in Mark Stibbe John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).
[9] In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Justin speaks of the 'Holy Spirit of prophecy' (ch. 32) and 'a psalm, dictated to David by the Holy Spirit' (ch. 34).  Moreover, no Scripture contradicts another (ch. 65).  He states, however, that Scripture belongs to the Christians, not the Jews, 'for we believe them' (ch. 29).  And he does accuse Jews of removing inconvenient Scriptures that Christians read in reference to Christ (ch. 72): Jer. 11.19, as well as one from Esdras and one or more supposedly from Jeremiah that we cannot identify.
[10] According to Origen, Jesus’ prayer not to drink the cup of punishment was a prayer for Israel, for to drink it would mean that she would be punished for her sins against him (Contra Celsum 2.25).
[11] While Cyprian’s argument at times overlaps that of Hebrews, he never references it.  Only Old Testament passages will be noted here.
[12] Trans. William Fletcher, Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. 7 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1886).
[13] Commodianus, a century later, also finds in Moses’ dashing the ‘Law’ to pieces a foreshadowing of its replacement.  The problem with the Law, though, lay in Israel’s hardheartedness, as Isaiah (6.10) stated.  This, says Commodianus, is why they are not worthy of the kingdom of heaven (Instructions 38).
[14] In this passage, Origen further states that the Jews have never been separated from their land and temple worship for so long and without God’s visitation, and that they will never be restored due to their crime against the Saviour of the human race.
[15] Also Barnabas, Epistle 13; Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews 1.
[16] Cf. Barnabas, Epistle 9; Tertullian, Answer to the Jews 10.
[17] See Gerald Bray, Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans (5th century) (IER Migne p. 82; see quote in Ancient Christian Commentary, p. 298.
[18] This is stated over against the attempt to deny a parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity in a scholarship represented by, e.g., Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed, eds., The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007).

The Second Week of Advent: Preparing for the peace of God

[An Advent Homily] The second Sunday in Advent carries the theme, ‘preparation for the peace of God’.   That peace comes with the birth of C...

Popular Posts