Early Christians’ Use of Scripture Regarding Jews, Christians, and the People of God (An Enquiry into the Primary Sources)

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 any relation between the Nazi persecution and the attitudes down the centuries of Christians towards the Jews’ (n. II). The document acknowledges that some Christians have, in the history of the Church in Europe, mistreated and persecuted the Jews, and have not done all that they could to oppose Antisemitism.  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that western, orthodox, Christian writers of the second, third, and early fourth centuries held that the Jews had been replaced by the Church as God’s people.  This was not the view of New Testament writers.  First, a hope is held out for the people of Israel (no national statement is made).  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 the expectation that one day (when it received the Lord) the people of Jerusalem would receive Jesus, the Messiah, as they did upon His triumphal entry.  Rom. 11.25-29 quotes Is. 59.20 with the hope that, despite her past sinfulness, all Israel would be saved.  Given the Old Testament reference, it seems to this interpreter that the meaning of this Romans verse must involve actual Israel—the Jews (again, no national Israel is in view).  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).  Second, following the view of the Old Testament, New Testament authors see the righteous as a part of Israel and not the entire ethnic or covenant group.  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 thoroughgoing conviction that the Jews were no longer God’s covenant people?  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 2^nd century, might be quoted as representative of the early Christian position that Israel was no longer the people of God (Instructor II.8):

 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 III), that God’s blessing or Spirit would be taken from Israel: Is. 3.1, 3; 5.1ff (XIII), and that Christ asked God to disperse Israel (Ps. 59.11; XIII).  He concludes:

Since, therefore, the Jews were predicted as destined to suffer these calamities on Christ’s account, and we find that they have suffered them, and see them sent into dispersion and abiding in it, manifest it is that it is on Christ’s account that these things have befallen the Jews, the sense of the Scriptures harmonizing with the issue of events and of the order of the times. Or else, if Christ is not yet come, on whose account they were predicted as destined thus to suffer, when He shall have come it follows that they will thus suffer. And where will then be a daughter of Sion to be derelict, who now has no existence? where the cities to be exust, which are already exust and in heaps? where the dispersion of a race which is now in exile? Restore to Judea the condition which Christ is to find; and (then, if you will), contend that some other (Christ) is coming (XIII).

Minucius Felix (mid-2^nd century or early 3^rd century) claims that Scripture demonstrates that Israel deserves her present fortune because of her obstinacy (Octavius XXXIII).  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 (XXXVIII).

Orthodox Christians of this period unequivocally maintained that salvation could only be found in Jesus.  As they did not distinguish election from salvation, they concluded that those Jews who were not Christians were no longer the people of God.  The Jews who were Christians occupied no position of privilege within the Church, which was made up of all peoples confessing Christ, and the Gentiles who became Christians did not need to become Jews to be the people of God.  Moreover, the Jewish Scriptures were also the Christian Scriptures and should not be rejected.  They could, in fact, be used to explain Judaism and the Church in God’s plan of salvation.  This last point is the one to be pursued momentarily.

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.  This century-old critique of Judaism is found in the first century not least within the Qumran community, 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. 

Yet when such a critique is voiced by Gentile Christians, when it is voiced within a fairly anti-Jewish Roman Empire, when it is stated that the Jews killed Jesus, and when Jewish suffering is said to be the result of the Jews’ crucifying Jesus, it is difficult to distinguish a critique of Judaism from Antisemitism.  Still, the careful scholar will distinguish 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) from an Antisemitism that utters degrading ethnic slurs and advocates persecution.  Indeed, for Ignatius himself, the issue was not ethnicity but Christ versus Jewish law (Philadelphians 6.1).  For Cyprian, quoting Is. 1.15-20, salvation also comes to the Jews, just as to the Gentiles, albeit their repentance is said 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).

It is not, however, Antisemitic to insist that a Jew needs to accept Christ as saviour for salvation. 

Furthermore, in the second and third centuries, Christians were regularly persecuted, and that sometimes with the involvement of Jews (Martyrdom of Polycarp; cf. section 13: the ‘Jews especially, according to custom, eagerly’ assisted in burning bishop Polycarp to death).  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 XXXI)—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).  Yet the essential debate between Christians and Jews appears not to be relations between their communities but the interpretation of the Scriptures.  Just what does Scripture say about the identity of God’s people?  The mutually accepted premise of all Jewish and Christian dialogue was that Scripture, as God’s Word, was authoritative.

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.  So, for example, Justin argued 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 (Instructor I.9):

Admonition: Jer. 3.9; Ez. 2.6-7; Is. 39.13

Upbraiding: Jer. 5.8-9; Hos. 4.14

Complaint: Is. 1.2-4; Jer. 1.16; 2.13 or 19.4 (‘they have forsaken me’)

Invective: Is. 30.1

Reproof: Is. 1.4; Jer. 2.12-13; Lam. 1.8

Bringing one to one’s senses: Jer. 6.10; 9.26; Is. 30.9

Denunciation: Is. 1.4

Accusation: Jer. 5.11-12 (God divorces Israel); Jer. 5.11-12

Bewailing one’s fate: Lam. 1.1-2

Objurgation: Jer. 3.3-4; Nah. 3.4

Indignation: Dt. 32.5-6; Is. 1.23

While Clement intends by this to illustrate how God inspired fear in order to bring salvation (I.9), in his view this did not work for Israel, as already noted (II.8).

We find the idea that God has rejected Israel due to her sinfulness succinctly stated in Commodianus, a North African bishop writing around AD 240 (XXXVIII):

Evil always, and recalcitrant, with a stiff neck ye [Jews] wish not that ye should be overcome; thus ye will be heirs.  Isaiah said that ye were of hardened heart.  Ye look upon the law which Moses in wrath dashed to pieces; 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.

Likewise, Minucius Felix writes (XXXIII):

For they themselves also, as long as they worshipped our God--and He is the same God of all--with chastity, innocency, and religion, as long as they obeyed His wholesome precepts, from a few became innumerable, from poor became rich, from being servants became kings; a few overwhelmed many; unarmed men overwhelmed armed ones as they fled from them, following them up by God's command, and with the elements striving on their behalf. Carefully read over their Scriptures, or if you are better pleased with the Roman writings, inquire concerning the Jews in the books (to say nothing of ancient documents) of Flavius Josephus or Antoninus Julianus, and you shall know that by their wickedness they deserved this fortune, and that nothing happened which had not before been predicted to them, if they should persevere in their obstinacy. Therefore you will understand that they forsook before they were forsaken, and that they were not, as you impiously say, taken captive with their God, but they were given up by God as deserters from His discipline.

Thus, on the one hand, Minucius Felix affirms that the Jews have worshipped the same God as the Christians, but, on the other hand, they have rebelled against God’s command.  He argues this latter point with reference to the manifold testimony of Scripture as well as historical events.  This would give some credence to reading Scriptural texts directed at the Jews centuries earlier as though they were still relevant in the time of the early Church.  The conclusion of this, for Minucius Felix, is that God only gave up on the Jews after they had forsaken him.  This could be considered Antisemitic, since a whole group is spoken of negatively and viewed as deserving their troubles.  But it could be viewed otherwise as well: the issue is not ethnicity but behaviour, and when they behaved well they were blessed.

Tertullian references various passages in Scripture that demonstrate the sinfulness of Israel and predict her exile (An Answer to the Jews):

            Ex. 32: 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

Once again, the testimony of Scripture across the centuries of its writing has been that Israel is sinful.  Tertullian feels no need to locate these verses in a particular period: 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:

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 II.8).

The sinfulness of the Jews culminates in their attitude towards Jesus Christ, according to Commodianus (XL). 

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; who told you to throw a stone for your offence.  If any should not believe that He had perished by an unjust death, and that those who were beloved were saved by other laws, thence that life was suspended on the tree, and 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.  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 on 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 (e.g., Is. 58), this is again not the New Testament perspective (e.g., 1 Cor. 9.20; Gal. 5.6; 6.15; Rom. 14.1ff; etc.).

The sinfulness of Israel is a line of argument one meets at numerous times in the literature.  The Scriptural basis for this typically comes from the prophetic writings on Israel’s sin.  Of interest is the fact that early Christian writers took these writings as though they continued to apply to the Jews.  Also to be noted is the diversity of texts used from author to author—the case was not standardized, but it could be made from many passages.  Within these, however, a few texts do get repeated attention, such as Is. 1.2ff.*  Finally, note that these Old Testament passages were not read as part of a larger story of God’s ultimate rescue of sinful, exiled Israel, as in the prophets.

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 2^nd 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*).

Another early 2^nd century writer, in the Epistle to Diognetus, sees Jewish religious practices as virtual idolatry.  The key to such an argument is thata 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 2^nd 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:

1.     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). 

2.     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:

•        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, cn 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), but 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 I.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 has taken place when, through Jesus, a new covenant was given and the spiritual came (An Answer to the Jews VI).  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' (II).  It was a temporal mirror of the new law in the new covenant, which is eternal.  Jer. 31.31f promised a new law, a new circumcision.  With the abolition of the old Law and circumcision also went Sabbath observance (IV). 

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

Like Justin, Origen acknowledged that some Christians follow the Jewish laws (Contra Celsum V.61), but the superior reading of the Scripture is allegorical (IV.49).  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 (Contra Celsum II.2).  In true Alexandrian form (cf. Philo), Origen argues that Christians penetrate to a deeper understanding of the Law than the Jewish superficial (literal) reading of it (II.4; V.60, with reference to 2 Cor. 3).  With Jesus’ coming, Jewish Scriptures could now be clearly interpreted (IV.42).  The Law, indeed, had both a literal and a spiritual understanding (VII.20), but the literal interpretation has come to an end with the end of Israel’s governmental authority, Temple, and presence in Jerusalem (VII.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 (VII.26):

… that it must be impossible for the legislation of Moses, taken literally, to harmonize with the calling of the Gentiles, and with their subjection to the Roman government; and on the other hand, it would be impossible for the Jews to preserve their civil economy unchanged, supposing that they should embrace the Gospel. For Christians could not slay their enemies, or condemn to be burned or stoned, as Moses commands, those who had broken the law, and were therefore condemned as deserving of these punishments; since the Jews themselves, however desirous of carrying out their law, are not able to inflict these punishments. But in the case of the ancient Jews, who had a land and a form of government of their own, to take from them the right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for their country, of putting to death or otherwise punishing adulterers, murderers, or others who were guilty of similar crimes, would be to subject them to sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them; for their very laws would in that case restrain them, and prevent them from resisting the enemy.

And that same providence which of old gave the law, and has now given the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not wishing the Jewish state to continue longer, has destroyed their city and their temple: it has abolished the worship which was offered to God in that temple by the sacrifice of victims, and other ceremonies which He had prescribed. And as it has destroyed these things, not wishing that they should longer continue, in like manner it has extended day by day the Christian religion, so that it is now preached everywhere with boldness, and that in spite of the numerous obstacles which oppose the spread of Christ's teaching in the world. But since it was the purpose of God that the nations should receive the benefits of Christ's teaching, all the devices of men against Christians have been brought to sought [read ‘naught’]; for the more that kings, and rulers, and peoples have persecuted them everywhere, the more have they increased in number and grown in strength.

Indeed, as the end of this quotation appears to suggest, the Jewish Law was a device of men (albeit formerly God-given) that could be an opposing force in the spread of the Gospel in the world.  Thus, as Origen elsewhere states, it was brought to an end for the purpose of universal mission, as Jesus (Mk. 7.18f), Paul (1 Cor. 8.8), and the meeting of the apostles and elders recorded in Acts 15 declared (Origen, Contra Celsum VIII.29).

Hippolytus offers another problem with the use of the Law.  The Ebionites, he comments, live according to the Jewish Law and believe that in it they, like Jesus, 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 VII.22).  *[move to quote from Ignatius]

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).

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 XXXIII).

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).

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 shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation" (Stromata I.21).

Tertullian also sees Dn. 9.25-27 as a prophesy fulfilled in the destruction of the Temple AD 70 (An Answer to the Jews VIII).  And he argues that circumcision was given to the Jews so that they could be identified and not admitted to Jerusalem (An Answer to the Jews 3).  Isaiah predicted the desolation of the land of Israel, and Tertullian sees in this the prohibition against the Jews’ entry into Jerusalem rather than a prediction of the exile centuries earlier (Is. 1.7-8).

Another argument from Tertullian is that there is a connection between Jesus’ death and the suffering of the Jews.  Amos 8.9 has the prophecy 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 X).  Jesus’ sacrificial suffering and Israel’s suffering in judgement are therefore related, and both took place in the first century.

Origen offers a charismatic proof of Christianity over against the myths of the Greeks.  Proof of Jesus’ power lies in the spread of the Church throughout the habitable world, conversions from sins, casting out of demons and removing diseases in Jesus’ name, and a change of character in true followers of Him (Contra Celsum LXVII).  Similarly, since Jesus’ coming,

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? (II.8; cf. VII.8).

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 IV.2).  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).  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').  Barnabas also argues analogically and typologically from Scripture that the Jews have been abandoned by God, for in Rebecca’s womb were two ‘nations,’ Jews and Christians, and the elder served the younger (Gen. 25) (13).  Also, the younger of Joseph’s two sons received the blessing that the elder should have received (Gen. 48), and 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)).

Clement of Alexandria’s replacement theology involves a communally appropriate rather than exegetical reading of Isaiah 54.  This passage is actually about God’s restoration of Israel, but Clement chooses to read ‘Israelites’ as Christians.  The result is that a text meant to assure Israel of God’s continued covenant faithfulness towards her is used to dispossess her: , Stromata II.6

For we are Israelites, who are convinced not by signs, but by hearing. Wherefore it is said, "Rejoice, O barren, that barest not; break forth and cry, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than of her who hath an husband."[Is. 54.1]  … Accordingly it is added more clearly, "Thou hast inherited the covenant of Israel," [an interpretation rather than a quote; v. 3 actually says that Israel’s descendents will possess the nations] speaking to those called from among the nations that were once barren, being formerly destitute of this husband, who is the Word, -- desolate formerly, -- of the bridegroom. "Now the just shall live by faith," [Rom. 1.17] which is according to the covenant and the commandments; since these, which are two in name and time, given in accordance with the [divine] economy -- being in power one -- the old and the new, are dispensed through the Son by one God (Stromata II.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 XII).

He further argued that, if the Messiah is, as Jews maintained, 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 in Bethlehem due to their removal by the Romans.  Moreover, anointing needed to be with a particular oil and at the Temple (Ex. 30.22-33), something no longer possible since the Jews had been expelled from the region and the Temple destroyed.  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.  To Tertullian, and other 2^nd and 3^rd century Christians, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the removal of Jews from Israel were predictions within Scripture, and the reason, Israel’s forsaking the Lord, was also found in Scripture.  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.  No special covenant relationship remained between God and Israel, and no salvation could be found apart from Christ Jesus.

Origen offers several arguments to demonstrate that the Jews are no longer the people of God.  First, Origen offers what we might call a charismatic argument.  He argues that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Jews in that they no longer have prophets or experience miraculous signs, except, on occasion, among Jewish Christians (Contra Celsum VII.8).  Christians, on the other hand, do experience these (II.8).  He states,

And the name of Jesus can still remove distractions from the minds of men, and expel demons, and also take away diseases; and produce a marvellous meekness of spirit and complete change of character, and a humanity, and goodness, and gentleness… (I.67).

Second, the whole Jewish nation was overthrown within a generation after Jesus (IV.22):

One fact, then, which proves that Jesus was something divine and sacred, is this, that Jews should have suffered on His account now for a lengthened time calamities of such severity. And we say with confidence that they will never be restored to their former condition. For they committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind, in conspiring against the Saviour of the human race in that city where they offered up to God a worship containing the symbols of mighty mysteries. 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, moreover, was predicted by 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’s Treatise 12 (book 1) is devoted to the question of the Jews as God’s people.  He argues that the Jews have been rejected by God and that this was foretold in the Scriptures.  His approach in the treatise is simply to quote passages of Scripture (references alone will be given) under certain heads, as follows:

1.              That the Jews have fallen under the heavy wrath of God, because they have departed from the Lord, and have followed idols: Ex. 32; Jdg. 2.11-13; 4.1; Mal. 2.11

2.              Also because they did not believe the prophets, and put them to death: Jer. 7.25; 25.4, 6-7; 1 Kgs. 19.10; Neh. 9.26.

3.              That it was previously foretold that they would neither know the Lord, nor understand nor receive Him: 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; Jn. 1.11-12.

4.              That the Jews would not understand the Holy Scriptures, but that they would be intelligible in the last times, after Christ had come.

This point is made with respect to the Jews prior to Christ’s first coming from Is. 29.11-18; Jer. 23.20; and Dn. 12.4-7.  Then New Testament passages are cited to make the point that the Jews continue in their lack of understanding (1 Cor. 10.1; 2 Cor. 3.14-16).  Christ opened the understanding of the disciples after his resurrection (Lk. 24.44-47).

5.              That the Jews could understand nothing of the Scriptures unless they first believed on Christ: Is. 7.9; Jn. 8.24; Hab. 2.4; Gen. 15.6; Gal. 3.6-9.  The quotations relate specifically to believing or trusting in God, although the passage from Jn. 8.24 emphasizes the need for the Jews to have faith in Jesus.

6.              That they would lose Jerusalem, and leave the land which they had received: Is. 1.7-9 and Mt. 23.37-39.

7.              That they would also lose the Light of the Lord.

             This point is made with reference to three texts using the word ‘light’.  The first says that God has sent away his people (Is. 2.5-6).  The second two texts come from John and have all people, not just the Jews, in focus: Cyprian is applying these passages to any, including the Jews, who reject the light of Christ: Jn. 1.9-10; 3.18-19.

8.              That the Jews have fallen under the heavy wrath of God, because they have departed from the Lord, and have followed idols: Ex. 32; Jdg. 2.11-13; 4.1; Mal. 2.11

9.              Also because they did not believe the prophets, and put them to death: Jer. 7.25; 25.4, 6-7; 1 Kgs. 19.10; Neh. 9.26.

10.           That it was previously foretold that they would neither know the Lord, nor understand nor receive Him: 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; Jn. 1.11-12.

11.           That the Jews would not understand the Holy Scriptures, but that they would be intelligible in the last times, after Christ had come.

This point is made with respect to the Jews prior to Christ’s first coming from Is. 29.11-18; Jer. 23.20; and Dn. 12.4-7.  Then New Testament passages are cited to make the point that the Jews continue in their lack of understanding (1 Cor. 10.1; 2 Cor. 3.14-16).  Christ opened the understanding of the disciples after his resurrection (Lk. 24.44-47).

12.           That the Jews could understand nothing of the Scriptures unless they first believed on Christ: Is. 7.9; Jn. 8.24; Hab. 2.4; Gen. 15.6; Gal. 3.6-9.  The quotations relate specifically to believing or trusting in God, although the passage from Jn. 8.24 emphasizes the need for the Jews to have faith in Jesus.

13.           That they would lose Jerusalem, and leave the land which they had received: Is. 1.7-9 and Mt. 23.37-39.

14.           That they would also lose the Light of the Lord.

             This point is made with reference to three texts using the word ‘light’.  The first says that God has sent away his people (Is. 2.5-6).  The second two texts come from John and have all people, not just the Jews, in focus: Cyprian is applying these passages to any, including the Jews, who reject the light of Christ: Jn. 1.9-10; 3.18-19.

15.           That Christ should be God’s house and temple, and that the old temple should pass away, and a new one should begin.

Cyprian quotes God’s word through Nathan to David about his seed building God’s house—2 Sam. 7.4, 5, 12-16.  He also quotes Mt. 24.2 and Mk. 14.58.

16.           That the old sacrifice should be made void, and a new one should be celebrated.

Cyprian quotes Is. 1.11-12; Ps. 50.13-15; Ps. 50.23; Ps. 4.5; Mal. 1.10-11.

17.           That the old priesthood should cease, and a new priest should come who should be for ever.

Ps. 110.3 (Melchizedek) and 1 Sam. 2.35-36 (a prophecy about the end of Eli’s line of priests) are quoted.

18.           That another prophet, such as Moses, was promised, to wit, who should give a new testament, and who was rather to be listened to.

Cyprian cites Dt. 18.18-19 and Jn. 5.39, 40, 45-47.

19.           That two peoples were foretold, the elder and the younger; that is, the ancient people of the Jews, and the new one which should be of us.

Cyprian cites the prophecy to Rebecca, that she had two nations in her womb (Gen. 25.23) and Hos. 2.23; 1.10.

20.           That the Church, which had previously been barren, should have more sons from among the Gentiles than the synagogue had had before.

Cyprian cites Is. 54.1-4 with reference to Abraham, Jacob, Elkanah; 1 Sam. 2.5, etc.

21.           That the Gentiles should rather [than the Jews] believe in Christ.

Cyprian cites God’s covenant with Abraham, which says that all nations will be blessed in him (Gen. 12.1-3).  He also quotes passages about the father’s blessing the younger son: Isaac’s blessing Jacob (Gen. 27.27-29) and Joseph’s blessing Ephraim (Gen. 48.17-19).  Several other passages are cited: Gen. 49.8-12; Num. 23.14; Dt. 28.43-44; Jer. 6.18; Jer. 1.5; Is. 55.4; Is. 55.5; Is. 11.10; Is. 11.1-2; Is. 45.1; Is. 66.18-19; Is. 5.25-26; Is. 52.15; Is. 65.1; and Acts 13.46-47.

22.            That the Jews should lose the bread and the cup of Christ, and all His grace; while we should receive them, and that the new name of Christians should be blessed in the earth.

Cyprian cites Is. 65.13-15; Is. 5.26-27; Is. 3.1-2; Jn. 6.35; Jn. 7.37-38; Jn. 6.53.  All these passages refer to food and drink and most to a replacement of one group by another.

23.           That rather the Gentiles than the Jews should attain to the kingdom of heaven.

Only Mt. 8.11-12 is quoted.

24.           That the Gentiles should rather [than the Jews] believe in Christ.

Cyprian cites God’s covenant with Abraham, which says that all nations will be blessed in him (Gen. 12.1-3).  He also quotes passages about the father’s blessing the younger son: Isaac’s blessing Jacob (Gen. 27.27-29) and Joseph’s blessing Ephraim (Gen. 48.17-19).  Several other passages are cited: Gen. 49.8-12; Num. 23.14; Dt. 28.43-44; Jer. 6.18; Jer. 1.5; Is. 55.4; Is. 55.5; Is. 11.10; Is. 11.1-2; Is. 45.1; Is. 66.18-19; Is. 5.25-26; Is. 52.15; Is. 65.1; and Acts 13.46-47.

One key argument that appears in several authors is that certain Old Testament narratives show that the younger of two ended up being preferred.  These texts are then interpreted as referring to Israel and the Church, the latter being preferred by God and replacing Israel.

Cyprian argued that Scripture predicted two peoples, the Jews and the Christians (Treatise 12.1.19).  The ‘two peoples’ argument can be found in Hos. 2.25 and 1.10, and both Paul (Rom. 9.25) and Peter (1 Peter 2.10) make use of it.  Cyprian also notes that there were two nations in Rebecca’s womb (Treatise 12.1.19).  Similarly, Is. 54.1-4 speaks of the desolate woman (the Gentiles) having more sons than the married woman (Israel).  Also, Abraham had two sons, the older from the slave woman, Hagar, and the other seen as a type of Christ (similarly Paul in Gal. 4.21ff).  Moreover, Jacob had two wives, one, Leah, who had weak eyes (the synagogue), and the more beautiful, Rachel, who was long barren and then gave birth to Joseph, a type of Christ.  (so also Commodianus, XXXIX).  Also, Cyprian continues, Elkanah had two wives, with Samuel coming from the barren wife, Hannah, by God’s mercy and promise.  Then Cyprian quotes 1 Sam. 2.5, which states that the barren woman has given birth to seven, while the mother of many has grown weak.  He interpreted the seven children allegorically as the church.

Commodianus also mentions Jacob’s two wives, Leah and Rachel.  But he offers other Old Testament types of Israel and the Church in Tamar’s twins (Gen. 38.27ff) and Abel offering a better sacrifice than his older brother, Cain (Gen. ) (XXXIX). 

Examples of allegorical interpretations that the people of God are no longer the Jews but now the Church are also found in the Church fathers.  Barnabas, for example, argued that Abraham's circumcision of 318 men (confusing Gen. 17.26f and 14.14) points to Christ, since ten and eight are written with the Greek letters ‘I’ and ‘H’, that are also the first two letters of Jesus’ name, and 300 is the written with the Greek letter 'T', representing by its shape the cross of Christ (9).  A similar use of Scripture is found in Tertullian, who combines an exegetical with an allegorical reading of Ez. 8.12-9.6.  This text, he states, prophesies the slaughter of idolatrous Israelites and the sealing of a remnant who groan over Israel’s abominations.  Then Tertullian adds, with reference to his Latin text Ezekiel, that the seal was with a 'T', taken as a sign of the cross.

Tertullian also reads II Kings 6.1-7 (where Elisha throws a piece of wood into the Jordan to retrieve an iron axe) allegorically: ‘wood’ is understood as Christ and ‘iron’ as the prophets and Christians suffering from the Jews.  The Jews, then, are distinguished from the righteous.  Gen. 34.25-31 is taken allegorically: the sin of Levi and Simeon is interpreted as the scribes’ and Pharisees’ slaughter of the prophets and the crucifixion of Jesus (X).  Moreover, as Joseph was sold by his brothers, so Christ was sold by Israel (X).

Conclusion

One result of this survey of literature is that every source surveyed sees a ‘parting of the ways’ between Judaism and Christianity.  There is tantalizing evidence of a whole variety of relationships between Christians and Jews in the second and third centuries, and there are groups (e.g., Ebionites) that sought to incorporate certain Christian teachings within Judaism or to remain within the synagogues and follow the Mosaic law, but these do not overturn the evidence of a parting of the ways between Jews and Christians that was already set in the first century.

Another result of this research is that the Contra Iudaeos literature is uncomfortably adversarial.  Despite a measure of politeness in some of this literature (e.g., Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew), and despite occasional affirmations of what is held in common (e.g., Origen’s Contra Celsum), what remains in print for later generations such as ourselves to peruse is largely negative.  One approach to remedy this is to engage in fanciful reconstructions of history that say far more about a politically correct bias in contemporary scholarship and/or an attempt to undermine orthodox Christianity.  But these approaches are merely a fad of contemporary, Western scholarship that will pass with the times they represent.  There are, however, alternatives, and with these I close.

One might first revisit the hermeneutics that allowed for so impassable an interpretation of the Scriptures.  From quotations offered above, the significance of a ‘spiritual’ reading of the Law and of allegory was a major part of the argument for orthodox Christian authors.  While this fits within methods of interpretation within Judaism (cf. Philo of Alexandria), and while rules of interpretation such as constructed by Hillel in the 1^st century or Ishmael in the 2^nd century permitted equally innovative readings of Scripture, contemporary Jewish-Christian dialogue needs to revisit the Scriptures afresh and with a literal hermeneutic rather than base itself on these earlier arguments.

Second, one might look afresh at the interpretation of particular texts.  In the above references, by no means all Scripture references are taken allegorically or spiritually, and patristic exegesis needs to be engaged by Biblical scholars and around the topic of the people of God, among others.  An even more significant topic than the people of God figures in the Jewish – Christian dialogue in texts such as those surveyed here: Christology.  Space has not permitted presenting this material as well.  Yet the most crucial question in the Jewish – Christian dialogue is exegetical: how do we interpret the pertinent Scriptural passages in the dialogue, particularly those on the topics of the people of God and Jesus’ identity, life, and work?  Fresh exegetical work needs to contribute to this dialogue, usually conducted by non-Biblical scholars.

Third, a narrative reading of the Bible offers new hope for interpreting the Old Testament on an issue such as who are the people of God.  For example, time and again, the Church fathers cited above were satisfied to quote passages that showed God’s punishment of the Jews.  They did not look at the relationship between such texts and promises of restoration.  And the passages referring to the Gentiles in Scripture do not suggest a replacement of Israel but an incorporation of Gentiles into a ‘new Israel’, a remnant of the righteous.  Moreover, God’s mercy and covenant faithfulness are Scriptural themes that apply to both Jews and Gentiles within the (Old Testament) Scriptures.  There is a narrative unity that must be understood within the Scriptures, and the literary turn in hermeneutics is helpful beyond exegesis for exploring this.

Fourth, charges of Antisemitism actually seem, to this author, to be on occasion appropriate, including certain Christian authors from the fourth century and later.  However, even when 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 same authors could write that God’s covenant with the Jews had not been revoked and that the Jews would experience God’s grace.  This evidence has not been noted above as it applies more to the fourth century, but the point needs to be expressed in conclusion lest the material presented here is misunderstood.  The following authors (5^th and 6^th c.), in commenting on Romans 11.23-31, all accept that God’s grace will yet extend to the Jews: Chrysostom (later 4^th century), Diodore (later 4^th century), Ambrosiaster (later 4^th century), Cyril of Alexandria (early 5^th century), Pseudo-Constantius (5^th c.), Pelagius (5^th c.), Gennadius of Constantinople (5^th c.), and Theodore of Cyr (5^th century).   Thus what often sounds like a replacement theology in the Church fathers is not wholly so once God’s future plan is in view (cf. Matthew 23.39; Romans 11.26-27).While this cannot be explored here, the hope of a future incorporation of the Jews (always, it seems, through faith in Christ) is related to a general patristic belief in the mercy of God and in the freedom of choice (not just divine sovereignty).

Finally, Antisemitism in our own time is deeply troubling.  It is not at all Christian.  We might believe that the Jews were punished and rejected by God for their rejection of the Messiah, but, when Jesus prophesied the coming destruction of Jerusalem some forty years later, He wept (Luke 19.41).  When Paul considered the Jews being cut off from Christ, he had great sorrow and anguish (Romans 9.1-5).  He also held out the hope of Isaiah 59.20-21 and 27.9 that all Israel would be saved when their sin is taken away (Romans 11.25-27).  The New Testament authors' criticism of Judaism was thoroughly in line with criticism of Israel in the Old Testament for not obeying but rejecting God.  While Romans 11 has various interpretations, I believe Paul’s eschatology expected a time of salvation for the Jews as they turn to Christ Jesus for the removal of their sins.

This has nothing to do with Israel as a geographical place and nation.  Yet, if any people have a claim on the land, it is the Jews.  Not only do they win any argument of historical legitimacy, they also win any argument of ethnic identity for possession of the land.  The land is full of Israelite history; it is a living geography.  They also win the argument of a right to the land because of their persecution over centuries.  They deserve a land of their own where they can live freely as Jews.  This does not mean exclusion of others who hold some historical claim to presence in the land, and we might also note that there are a number of both Palestinian Christians and Messianic Jews in Israel.  Christians should not argue that Jews have a right to the land based on their religion—they have rejected Christ—but they have other reasons to be present in the land of Israel and be a nation.  One thing the Bible affirms is that Jews have a religious right to the land if they live righteously before God, otherwise they will be removed.  Christians might say to the Jews that we pray for the day that they accept Jesus as Messiah.  Far be it from us to be Antisemitic, and we should repent for any moment in history when we were swept along with the culture and bad Biblical interpretation to be unjust in our relations with them.  As Paul says, God has the power to graft them back into the olive tree of God’s people by grace, not works, and by their acceptance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Romans 11).