Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why the Left Hates Christianity
. . . and the Judaism which gave rise to it.
The Catholic Church celebrates the feast of The Passion of St. John the Baptist today (August 29th). The Baptist is the last and greatest of the Old Testament prophets — the forerunner of the Messiah, who is Priest, Prophet, and King, and in whom the Old Testament prophecies are completely fulfilled. But, significant to this post, and like Jesus, John was a Jew. We Catholics commemorate on this day how John lost his head by proclaiming the Mosaic law to the tetrarch Herod Antipas regarding marriage. Namely, you shall not covet your neighbor’s (or your brother’s) wife (also Leviticus 20:21). If you’re unfamiliar with the story, you can read about it in the Gospel according to Mark, 6:17-29.
While John’s message was principally to repent and be washed in the waters of baptism — not judge other’s behavior to be sinful to prove your own worthiness — he still insisted on the moral demands of God’s covenant law, even for the rich and powerful. And this was the strike that came against him — right at the neck.
John Grondelski is another such truth-teller who takes on nominal Catholics in his article, When Did John Lose His Head? He says,
No doubt Antipas and his sycophants would have launched a campaign to convince Jews that they had it wrong, that “love is love” and “love wins,” even for the incestuous.
He insists that “the reality of marriage and the morality of sexual activity are objective norms which “norm” the individual. Norms measure the reality and the activity; it is not the individual, or even the community, that defines the reality and the morality.”
And he ends with,
What’s at stake today is more than two thousand years of received Christian tradition that says the son of Zechariah and Elizabeth was right in taking the civil tetrarch of Perea and Galilee to task for copulating with his brother’s wife. Either John was right in rejecting their divorces and subsequent cohabitation or John—and the Christian tradition that lionized him—was wrong for two millennia by being “hateful” toward Mr. and Mrs. Antipas. The unspoken corollary is that Christianity is at its core at least warped, if not hateful. And there’s no pardon in contemporary cancel culture—even for a Baptizer—who opposed “love” in the name of evidently mistaken religious norms.
But, I’ll take it a step further and say that when the sign of ultimate victory is Christ on the Cross, the threat to the Left isn’t just the insistence on reality (of marriage, and much else) and speaking truth. The threat leftists recognize from Christianity is that adherents are willing to die, like John, and especially like Jesus, for love of reality and truth. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake. . .” Christians believe that authentic love is self-sacrificial for the good of the other, even if the other doesn’t appreciate hearing the truth.
The Left hates Christianity because the conflicting visions are about the ultimate, life and death power struggle for souls. And a people willing to die for the truth are ultimately, eternally indomitable. Even if they lose their heads in the process.
Published in General
Oh, I got your (very fine) point. I just don’t have any experience with the tea and toast of this sort.
Modern Judaism is not the Judaism that gave rise to Christianity. Those who know and believe the Jewish Scriptures will believe in Jesus. The Jews who rejected Him knew nothing of God. We know this because Jesus told us this. (E.g. John 5:37-41, 5:45-47, 8:39-41.)
The modern philo-Semitism of many Christians is very strange to me. I used to take this view, and looking back, I feel that I accepted a false narrative, which is contrary to the Scriptures. It took quite a while for me to see what Scripture actually had to say.
This philo-Semitic narrative seems to have begun after the Holocaust, apparently because the surviving Jews convinced many Christians that it was the fault of the Christians that Jews were slaughtered by pagans. I think that if Christians knew the Scriptures, they would know that God promised to protect the Jews if they were faithful, and to punish them if they were not. (E.g. Leviticus 23, Deuteronomy 28.)
What did John the Baptist have to say? His main message was not a baptism of repentance, though he did perform such baptism. John the Baptist told us his mission, to point the way to Jesus — “for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” (John 1:31.) John the Baptist was a herald and a witness for Jesus.
What did John the Baptist have to say about the Jews who rejected Jesus? He called them a “brood of vipers.” (Matthew 3:7.) He compared them to a tree that does not bear good fruit, which will be cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 3:10.) He compared them to chaff, which Jesus would separate from the wheat and then “burn with unquenchable fire.” (Matthew 3:12.)
Jesus had much the same to say about the Jews who rejected Him. He also called them a “brood of vipers.” (Matthew 23:33.) He called them children of hell, and blind guides, and whitewashed tombs. (Matthew 23:15, 16, 27.) He called them children of their father the Devil. (John 8:44.)
In response, they conspired to kill Him, and eventually did so. They hated Him.
Jesus also explained why the unbelievers, Jews and Gentiles alike, hate him. “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come into the light, lest his works should be exposed.” (John 3:19-20.)
They hated His followers, too, and persecuted them. They beat Peter and John (the Apostle), and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus. (Acts 5:40.). They stoned Stephen to death. (Acts 7:54-60.)
Jesus explained that those who hate Christians do so because they hated Him first. (John 15:18-19.) He told His disciples that they would be persecuted, and specifically pointed to the Jews in this. “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.” (John 15:22.) This is a repetition of what Jesus said earlier to the Pharisees. (John 9:40-41.) And, of course, it was the Jews who persecuted both Jesus and His first followers.
I think that the lesson of Scripture on this point is very clear. The Jews who reject Jesus, like everyone who rejects Jesus, are His enemies. It is a divisive message. Jesus said that it was divisive. “Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.” (Luke 12:51.)
Paul taught to avoid unity with unbelievers. “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14.)
I wonder if the left hates Christianity so much because the left is essentially a Christian heresy. Prior to Christianity, the suffering, death and injustice in the world were taken for granted. It was just the way the world was, and always would be. Christianity introduced the idea of redemption, not just of man himself, but nature as well. It introduced the possibility of a radically different world of peace and justice. That redemption would be accomplished through Jesus Christ and would be finally fulfilled in His Second Coming.
The left, famously, took this idea and naturalized it: “immanentizing the eschaton.” The new world of peace and justice would not be created through God, but through man’s own efforts. Like any heresy, the progressive heresy has a special hatred of the orthodox religion from which it derived, for that religion pinpoints the lies at the root of the heresy: That man might achieve his own redemption without recourse to God. The orthodox believer knows that this belief leads to hell on Earth, not heaven on Earth.
John and Jesus are referring to the Pharisees and Sadducees in these passages, not the ordinary Jew.
The Jews who believed in Christ didn’t merely read Scripture and then conclude that Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus backed up his claims with miracles, e.g. Matthew 9:6. The Apostles met Jesus post Resurrection, and then backed up their witness of His Resurrection with their own miraculous healings.
If you can pull off similar miraculous healings, I am sure many contemporary Jews would be willing to convert.
Not anymore. To much cynicism, too many charlatans, too much technology that can trick the eyes.
What? That is literally the first thing said about him in the Gospel of Mark:
The Proclamation of John the Baptist
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[a]
2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,[b]
“Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
who shall prepare thy way;
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight—”
4 John the baptizer appeared[c] in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
Well, yes, there are a lot of fakes out there. I’m talking about a genuine healing. There are instances of Jesus healing people who had been blind from birth, for instance. This would impress the relatives of such an individual, who would know the man was genuinely blind. With a TV faith healer grabbing someone out of the audience, you can have no such confidence.
I quoted the reason that the baptism of repentance was not the main message. It is the words of John the Baptist himself. To repeat:
This is also clear in the verses that you quoted — John the Baptist was the “messenger” sent to “prepare thy way.”
John’s baptism of water was important, but it was a means to an end. The end was faith in Jesus, who John identified as the Lamb of God and the Son of God and the one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and through whom we can obtain eternal life.
The Jews who rejected Jesus saw the miracles, and rejected Him anyway. Do you remember what Jesus said about this? It’s in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, in Luke 16:
I do agree that the Pharisees and the Sadducees were the ringleaders of the rejection of Jesus, but this does not absolve the Jewish crowd that listened to them and rejected Jesus. Jesus said something about those who listened to these false teachers. From Matthew 23:
So those who listen to the Jewish leaders are also children of hell.
In Acts 3, Peter expressly blamed the entire Jewish crowd for the death of Jesus. After the healing of the man lame from birth:
Peter did extend an invitation to this Jewish crowd to repent, saying “I know that you acted in ignorance.” He quotes Moses and references the other prophets in verses 22-24, making clear that those Jews who continued to reject Jesus would be condemned:
The good news is that many in this crowd believed.
Why are people who claim to be Christian, who (presumably) believe that faith in Jesus is the only way to salvation, so eager to embrace and exonerate a group of people who have rejected that teaching for 2,000 years? It is a wonderful thing if they repent and put their faith in Jesus. It is a terrible and tragic thing if they don’t, and they will perish.
This seems, to me, to be the clear message of the New Testament. Why do you find it so objectionable? Why do excuse rejection of the Author of Life? Why do you suggest that little ol’ me ought to be out there performing miracles, as if the unbelief of the Jews is somehow my fault.
Your long comment (I could only quote part of it) makes it seem that you consider religious Jews to be your enemies and you have no inclination to have fellowship or unite with them. Is this the case?
Matthew 5:43-48 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
And, of course, Luke 23:33,34 “When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals – one on his right, the other on his left. Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.'”
Galatians 6:9,10 “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have the opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” (maybe a special duty to fellow believers, but still a clear command to do good to “all people”)
My guess is that it is because of passages like these, among others I’m sure, not to mention just the overall spirit of the message of forgiveness in Christianity, that Christians are “so eager to embrace and exonerate a group of people who have rejected that teaching for 2,000 years.”
Jerry’s enemies list is pretty inclusive.
I agree that we should preach the Gospel to Jews and there is a danger of damnation for all those who refuse the Gospel. But our calling as Christians is not to condemn people, but to convert them. Christ converted people through miracles, as did the Apostles. The early Christians gained many converts through their radically Christlike mode of life, including martyrdom. Later saints like St. Francis sold everything they had, and preached the Gospel in rags and converted people through the manifest holiness of their lives. This is Christian love in action.
You write that it is a “terrible and tragic thing” if the Jews don’t convert and they perish. I agree. What do we do about that? Not all Jews have rejected the Gospel. Many were converted through the miracles of the Apostles and the historic witness of the saints. Rather than distancing ourselves from Jews and condemning them, I suggest the authentic Christian response is to embrace them and convert them through love and holy witness.
Nothing JG has said gainsays this. But it is not uncommon in some parts of Christianity to assert that Jews do not need to receive Jesus in order to be saved.
That speaks to a very unique treatment of Jews by the little-c church (this isn’t a universal teaching, I don’t think) and I think it’s right to question why it exists and does not warrant accusing anyone of hating Jews for asking.
It is not consistent with Biblical Christianity and it doesn’t require any more hatred on the part of the questioner than is spent on gentiles who do not believe in The Way, The Truth, and The Life. The enemy isn’t the Imago Dei, but the principalities of darkness that surround us at this time.
I will say this in defense of WC including Jews with Christians as recipients of the world’s hate.
While I agree that modern Judaism seems to purposely direct Jews away from the things in the Torah and the prophets that point to the messiah, it can’t remove all of it. And it is through the foundations of Judaism that God has laid the foundation through which his ultimate purpose might be recognized.
That is still true today, in spite Rabbinical lawyers being able to distort things. Such people exist in Christianity, too. It doesn’t change that people can find God through His divine revelation.
Which is why this post is about the Left hating orthodox believers of both faith traditions. The enemy is on the Left, and certainly is NOT orthodox Jews. Jerry seems to have an unattractive fixation, even if it’s not hatred.
I think that it is a bad idea to tell modern Jews, meaning those who follow Judaism and reject Christ, that their faith is OK. It is not OK.
Maybe answering your question should involve returning to the topic of the OP, which is about John the Baptist. John called the Jewish people to repentance, and then pointed them to Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins. Jesus said the same thing, reported in Mark 1:15: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel.”
I think that you are wrong about the “authentic Christian response,” though this may depend on what you mean by “embrace them.” I quoted the Scripture verses about this, about not being yoked to unbelievers. You can read 1 John for the theme of Christian love for fellow Christians, which will draw others to Christ.
I don’t see either John the Baptist, or Jesus, or Peter, or Paul taking a squishy approach with the Jews who rejected Jesus. All four were harsh and critical.
I see a trend in modern Christianity to “embrace” Judaism as a wonderful faith. The Judaism set forth in the Old Testament, understood properly, is a wonderful faith, and it points to Jesus. Jesus is the one who told us this. The Jews who reject Jesus, though, do not understand or believe their own Scripture, because if they did, they would believe in Jesus. Jesus is the one who told us this.
I also object to the suggestion that I am the one “condemning” the Jews. I think that I am simply repeating the truth, as Jesus taught. Jesus said, in John 3 when teaching Nicodemus, that He did not come to condemn, but that those who reject Him are “condemned already” because they have not believed.
Are we not supposed to tell them that they are condemned? Jesus did, and John the Baptist did, and Peter did, and Paul did. Were their actions and words not an “authentic Christian response”?
So, I object to the modern tendency to conflate Christianity with Judaism. I object to the use of the term “Judeo-Christian,” as if they are the same thing.
Jesus, Peter and Paul performed miracles to prove the truth of the Gospel. Since you advocate taking a similarly strong line with respect to Jews, I assume you can perform similarly strong miracles to back it up? I’ve made this point several times but you simply ignore it. If you are going to “talk the talk” with respect to condemnations, you should “walk the walk” with respect to miraculous evidence. Why should a Jew believe you otherwise?
Personally, I can’t back up the Gospel with miracles , perhaps from a lack of faith. Probably from a lack of faith. If we had faith the size of a mustard seed, we could move mountains, right? So I don’t feel I have the right to condemn people for lack of belief.
Because they witnessed His miracles that substantiated His claims.
I’ve pointed out the differences between us and Jesus, Peter and Paul.
I’m wondering: How effective have your condemnations been in converting Jews to Christianity?
Re Carlotta’s comment: Yeah, I guess so. God’s enemies list is pretty long. I want my list to match His.
Re Steven’s question: I have no inclination to fellowship or unite with Jews who reject Jesus. I would welcome them to church if they were genuinely seeking the truth, but fellowship and unity is reserved for those who believe.
I think that this is what the New Testament teaches. I already quoted Paul’s statement about not being unequally yoked with unbelievers. John (the Apostle) wrote much the same thing in his epistles:
And:
Peter says much the same thing in 2 Peter 2, warning against false prophets and teachers.
So no, I don’t want fellowship or unity with those that John the Apostle called “antichrists.” I would like them to come to faith in Jesus, at which point fellowship and unity is automatic.
I don’t agree with this, Stina.
It is true that a lot of the world hates Christians, and a lot of the world hates Jews. I think that the reasons are entirely different. Jesus told us that the world would hate Christians because the world hates Him.
The world does not hate the Jews because the Jews have the truth about God. The Jews — meaning those who reject Jesus — do not have the truth about God. Jesus told us this.
It seems possible that a better explanation for the world’s hatred of Jews is that God is fulfilling His promises in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. He promised blessings and safety for obedience, and disaster for disobedience.
I’d like to comment about this again… because I think our difference here is one of authority. John the Baptist was the last and greatest of the OT Prophets. Jesus is the Son of God, Peter was an Apostle who was called specifically by Christ and became the rock on which Christ built the Church. Paul was visited post Resurrection by Christ and given authority by Christ Himself. They were given authority by Christ and performed miracles in His name.
Just because men with such authority say certain things, doesn’t mean we should say them. It might have been the “Christian response” for Christ to issue condemnations to people who refused to believe after experiencing His miracles. I suspect that was “tough love” from Him as a last ditch effort to convert them. That doesn’t mean we should be issuing similar condemnations, unless we have been appointed by Christ to do so. And if we can’t perform the miracles that leave people with no excuse, we should be especially careful about such pronouncements.
I think it is far better for us to imitate St. Francis, St. Francis Xavier, St. Isaac Jogues or many of the other saints who converted souls through humble and holy lives, rather than issuing proclamations like we are an Apostle or an OT prophet.
But John is talking about “deceivers” – false prophets, not ordinary non-believers going about their lives. If he were just talking about all non-believers, I think this would contradict Jesus himself who, as I quoted above, said, “And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?” Ironically that could make John one of those false teachers – so I assume that’s not what he meant.
I don’t know what you mean by unity and fellowship, but I think it is clear the Christian must “greet” non-believers. Doesn’t mean we have to let them preach in our churches, or accept their mistaken beliefs, or follow them, but we must love them and be good to them.
The early Christians became known for their care of the poor and the sick, not just among each other but they extended their care to pagans. They didn’t demand conversion as the price of care. They understood the meaning of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
J, I’m not sure if you’re Catholic or not. I am not. Accordingly, I do not look to Catholic saints as examples. I look to the New Testament.
I’m not sure about your point. It seems to me that we are supposed to model ourselves on the Apostles. It seems to me that we are supposed to spread the Gospel, and that means telling people what Jesus said, and what John the Baptist and Peter and Paul said. Obviously, I don’t claim to be one of the Apostles. On the other hand, I do remember that Paul wrote favorably of people who were not Apostles themselves, such as Apollos, and he gave instruction to those who followed him in ministry, like Timothy and Titus.
In your view, if there are commands that applied only to the Apostles, how would we discern them? Was the Great Commission given only to the Apostles? I don’t think so myself.
I’m troubled by the idea that I’m supposed to be reticent to tell people what the Gospel says, if I haven’t done miracles myself — if this is what you mean about being “especially careful about such pronouncements” in the absence of miracles.
Do you have any examples in the New Testament itself about the strategy of patient service as a way of winning believers? I’m not saying that we aren’t supposed to do good works sometimes. We are. But it seems to me that Jesus gave instructions for dealing with people who do not receive the messengers of the Gospel, in Matthew 10:
I realize that these instructions were given in a particular context, when Jesus sent out the Twelve, so it’s not clear whether they apply to us today. These instructions are consistent with the injunction to not “cast ye your pearls before swine,” which was a more general instruction in the Sermon on the Mount.
Luke 10 has a similar account of Jesus sending out not the Twelve, but seventy-two others, and ends with a similar condemnation for those who do not receive His messengers.
It is possible, J, that you are right about this. I struggle with it myself. It does seem to me, though, that in the past 75 years or so, most Christians have taken your approach, and toned down the message. This period coincides with a significant decline in Christian faith in our country, at least as measured in opinion polls and church attendance.
Not effective at all, yet, at least as far as I know. I’ve only written this sort of thing a couple of times, here at Ricochet. I doubt that it will do any good, at least not as a direct matter. Still, it seems useful to put forth the truth, as I see it. Those who sow are not necessarily the same as those who reap.
I’m not very optimistic about my chances of reaching believing Jews, or unbelieving Jews, for that matter. Or others, for that matter. I don’t know what makes people come to faith. Ecumenical outreach seems, to me, to correlate with abandonment of the Gospel by a number of organizations that call themselves churches.
There is a political question going on, too, which is the strange support for Israel — meaning the modern nation — among so many Christians. I used to share that opinion, and have come to believe that it is quite mistaken.
The worst enemies of Jesus were orthodox Jews. I’ve quoted the harsh things that Jesus said about them, and some of the harsh words of His Apostles, too, including John, who called those who deny Jesus “antichrists.” Jesus called them sons of Hell and children of the Devil. Apparently, you disagree, and consider them to be something like friends and allies. I think that this is a mistake.
That parable is a tricky one, I think.
Most people seem to think that the point of this parable (in Luke 10) is that we should act like the Good Samaritan. I’m not going to say that this is completely wrong, as the Good Samaritan did act well. It is a good example.
However, what is the question that Jesus answered with this parable? He was talking to a lawyer — an expert in the Jewish law — who asked how to receive eternal life, and Jesus turned the question around on him. The lawyer answered, essentially, love God and love your neighbor, and Jesus said that he was right.
The lawyer then asked: “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus told the parable in response to this question. The response contrasted the Good Samaritan, who helped the robbed and beaten man, with two others who did not. Who were the two others?
Well, they were a priest and a Levite.
So it seems to me that the lesson, for the lawyer, was that the Jewish priest and the Levite were not his “neighbors.” The despised Samaritan was his neighbor.
That’s quite a condemnation of the Jewish leadership of the time, isn’t it?
I agree that there is a place in evangelism for unapologetic “ugly” truth telling. In scare quotes because the truth is uncomfortable and reveals human ugliness, not ugly itself.
This conversation seems to dove tail with the GD post over whether hell and brimstone preaching is an appropriate evangelical tool.
Sometimes, it is necessary for people to be confronted with the consequences of rejecting God. We should not be in the business of telling Christians they can only speak some truths and not others.
The body is made of many parts. No part is greater than the other and no part should be excised from the body because another part functions differently and thinks that’s the only way to function.
That’s literally the second thing.
Or it’s the first thing, because they’re kind of the same thing.
Not his enemies. Just sinners (like him, like me) who need the Messiah.
And the problem he mentioned was that they don’t believe the Tanakh. Insufficiently religious.