This post may contain affiliate links. If you decide to make a purchase through these links, I earn a small commission at no cost to you. I do not promote anything I do not believe in or stand behind.
In this post, I want to highlight the deep historical roots of anti-Zionism, as it is a mutation of antisemitism. Therefore, I argue that one must understand the origins of antisemitism before discussing anti-Zionism.
The roots of anti-Zionism are closely intertwined with those of antisemitism. It is difficult to overlook this connection unless it is done deliberately.
The parting of the ways
Mark Kinzer quotes the following excerpt from James Dunn: [1]
“The parting of the ways was more between mainstream Christianity and Jewish Christianity than simply between Christianity as a single whole and rabbinic Judaism.”
Within Second Temple Judaism (or Judaisms, as Jacob Neusner would say), there was a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices. As a result, there were already several ‘parted ways’ (Judaisms) in the first century, though these various groups tended to converge at the Temple.
The Jewish Jesus/Yeshua movement (Jewish Christianity) emerged alongside and competed with the Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, and other forms of Judaism. The formation of a new Jewish sect or denomination was not particularly novel.
However, unlike many other Judaisms (plural) the Jesus movement was uniquely positioned to grow after the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple. At the same time, a new rabbinic movement (Rabbinic Judaism), which continued the traditions of various older groups – , especially the Pharisees -, also began to
thrive. These two paths never truly ‘parted’ because they were never one to begin with; rather, they developed alongside each other, often in a ‘conversation.’
A true ‘parting of the ways’ occurred within the Jesus movement (Christianity) as Gentiles began to assert more control, shaping the movement’s identity as something increasingly distinct from, or even opposed to, rabbinic Judaism.
Meanwhile, Jews within the Church continued to hold various beliefs and practices, including different attitudes toward their connection to rabbinic Judaism, participation in synagogues (Jewish community centers), and the role of traditional Torah observance.
However, mainstream Christianity eventually solidified its boundaries, excluding those who wanted to maintain Torah observance. This effectively removed the overlap with Judaism, but the true split occurred within Christianity itself. Jewish Christians were unable to sustain their branch of the Jesus movement and were absorbed into the Gentile-majority Church.
The logic of supersessionism (the Church replacing ethnic Israel / “replacement theology”) would have made far less sense if Jewish Christianity had remained valuable to the mainstream, let alone continued as Christianity’s core. Similarly, the Christian antisemitism of later eras would not have been conceivable possible without the foundation of theological anti-Judaism that had developed during the early years of Christian identity formation -, an identity defined in opposition to Judaism.
The antisemitism and anti-Judaism of some of the most influential Church fathers
Antisemitism has deep and ancient roots, beginning with the 2nd century and the writings of the Church Fathers. Many Church Fathers, such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and John Chrysostom, expressed antisemitic views, though there may have been a few exceptions. Their writings laid the groundwork for later events, including the Holocaust and the rise of anti-Zionism.
While it is not my intention to catalogue all the statements made by the Church Fathers about the Jewish people and Judaism, I will highlight several key examples. My aim is to demonstrate how a ‘parting of the ways’ occurred within the Church from the late 1st century into the early 2nd century.
Ignatius of Antioch (35-107)
Put aside then the evil leaven, which has grown old and sour, and turn to the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. … It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism ioudaizein.. For Christianity did not base its faith on Judaism, but Judaism on Christianity, and every tongue believing on God was brought together in it. (Magnesians 10:2-3) [2]
Fifty years after the deaths of Peter and Paul, a prominent Christian bishop speaks disparagingly of Judaism and Jewish practices, describing them as ‘the evil leaven, which has grown old and sour.’ He urges both Jews and Gentiles to reject any attempt to combine Jesus with Judaism, stating that ‘it is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and practice Judaism.’ Unfortunately, this indicates how much the relationship between Christianity and Judaism had deteriorated in a relatively short period of time. [3]
Justin Martyr (100-ca. 165)
Dialogue with Trypho: [4]
“But Trypho again objected, “if a man knows that what you say is true, and, professing Jesus to be the Christ, believes in and obeys Him, yet desires also to observe the commandments of the Mosaic Law, shall he be sayed?” “In my opinion,” I replied, “I say such a man will be saved, unless he exerts every effort to influence other men (I have in mind the Gentiles, whom Christ circumcised from all error) to practice the same rites as informing them that they cannot be saved unless they do so ….”But why,” pressed Trvpho, “did you say, ‘in my opinion such a man will be saved?’ There must, therefore, be other Christians who hold a different opinion.”Yes, Trypho, ” I conceded, “there are some Christians who boldly refuse to have conversation or meals with such persons. I don’t agree with such Christians. But if some [Jewish converts], due to their instability of will, desire to observe as many of the mosaic precepts as possible-precepts which we think were instituted because of your hardness of heart-while at the same time they place their hope in Christ, and if they desire to perform the eternal and natural acts of justice and piety, yet wish to live with us Christians and believers, as already stated, not persuading them to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to perform any other similar acts, then it is my opinion that we Christians should receive them and associate with them in every way as kinsmen and brethren.
This is a dialogue between Trypho and Justin Martyr, a dialogue focusing on the question of whether a Jewish believer in Yeshua (Jesus) who continues to practice Judaism can be saved. This question inverts the earlier debate from Acts 15, where the issue was whether Gentile believers needed to convert to Judaism to be saved. By the time of Justin, the situation had shifted so much that the concern now was whether Jewish believers had to abandon their Jewish practices to attain salvation.
Justin’s response reveals that some early Christians believed Jewish Jesus- believers who maintained Jewish practices were not saved, a view possibly held by figures like Ignatius and writings like The Epistle of Barnabas. Although Justin himself does not fully endorse this strict position, it eventually became the dominant Christian teaching.
This shift indicates that while early Jewish Yeshua-believers decided Gentiles did not need to become Jews to be saved, the emerging Christian consensus was that Jews essentially needed to abandon their Jewish identity, effectively becoming Gentiles, to be saved. Justin adopts a more tolerant stance, accepting Jewish believers as long as they don’t try to persuade Gentile believers to adopt Jewish practices. However, he still views their adherence to Jewish identity and practices as a flaw, seeing it as a sign of an “instability of will.”
McDermott says about Justin Martyr:
”He suggested that Jesus was starting a new religion, breaking decisively with his Jewish past…Justin was the first to say that the Church was the true Israel.” [5]
McDermott also points to Oskar Skarsaune’s observation that
”Justin fell prey to exactly what Paul had warned his gentile readers against: Do not boast over the branches (Rom 11:18 NRSV)…He [Paul] cautioned the gentile followers of Jesus against the arrogance that forgets that ’it is not you who support the root [Jewish Israel], but the root that supports you’”. [6]
John Chrysostom (347-407)
The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…the refuge of brigands and debauchees, and the cavern of devils. [It is] a criminal assembly of Jews…a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ…a house worse than a drinking shop…a den of thieves; a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, a refuge of devils, a gulf and abyss of perdition…
I would say the same things about their souls…As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews
for the same reason… [7]
Chrysostom describes synagogues in derogatory terms, labelling them as places of vice, idolatry, and criminality. Chrysostom’s rhetoric portrays synagogues as corrupt and demonic, referring to them as “dens of scoundrels” and “houses of ill fame.” He extends this harsh judgment to the Jewish people themselves, expressing deep hatred toward them and their religious practices.
Chrysostom’s statements reflect a broader pattern of theological and social antagonism towards Judaism in early Christian discourse. Chrysostom was influenced by Origen in adopting this extreme negative view of the Jewish people and apparently, he was also concerned because some Christians wanted to convert to Judaism. [8]
Gregory of Nyssa (335-395)
He said about the Jewish people:
Murderers of the Lord, killers of the prophets, enemies and slanderers of God; violators of the law, adversaries of grace, aliens to the faith of their fathers, advocates of the devil, progeny of poison snakes…whose minds are held in darkness, filled with the anger of the Pharisees, a Sanhedrin of satans, Criminals, degenerates…enemies of all that is decent and beautiful… [9]
Gregory presents a scathing and deeply derogatory portrayal of Jews, reflecting extreme antisemitic sentiments. It describes Jews using harsh and dehumanizing language, labelinglabelling them as “murderers of the Lord” and “killers of the prophets,” and accuses them of being “enemies and slanderers of God.”
The text further denounces them as “violators of the law” and “adversaries of grace,” depicting them as fundamentally corrupt and evil. This rhetoric paints Jews as agents of the devil and associates them with criminality and moral degradation. The language used underscores a profound disdain and animosity, characterizing Jews as fundamentally opposed to decency and virtue.
The echoes of antisemitism
The negative views of Judaism established by the Church Fathers influenced later Christian thought and were absorbed into broader cultural attitudes. These views were perpetuated through medieval Christian teachings, which often depicted Jews as malevolent or morally corrupt.
The antisemitism of the early Church fathers, Constantine and later the antisemitism of Martin Luther, John Calvin and others are being exposed today in ever clearer dimensions. The church fathers rejected the Jewish believers in Jesus not long after the destruction of Jerusalem and the death of the first Apostles. The Jewish people were portrayed by the church fathers and by many others as the ‘’Christ killers’ and the scapegoats for all the problems of the world.
Such historic antisemitism helped to shape modern prejudices and stereotypes about Jews, influencing attitudes toward Jewish people and their statehood. Modern anti-Zionism, in some cases, reflects older antisemitic themes. While anti-Zionism is ostensibly a political stance against the state of Israel, it can
sometimes carry overtones of the historical antisemitism seen in the Church Fathers. For example, the demonization of Israel as a “bully” or “oppressor” in some anti-Zionist rhetoric can echo older Christian narratives that portrayed Jewish entities as morally or spiritually corrupt.
While contemporary anti-Zionism might not be explicitly theological, some arguments can draw on historical Christian themes of Jewish illegitimacy or moral inferiority, albeit in a secularized form. The legacy of supersessionism can contribute to a view of Israel or Jewish statehood as inherently problematic or illegitimate, reflecting an outdated and prejudiced view of Jewish identity.
The antisemitism of the Church Fathers has had a profound and lasting impact on Christian and secular attitudes toward Judaism. This historical prejudice has influenced modern anti-Zionism by perpetuating negative stereotypes and fostering a framework of suspicion and hostility toward Jewish identity and statehood. Understanding this historical context is crucial for addressing how these ancient biases continue to manifest in contemporary debates about Israel and Jewish identity.
[1] Kinzer, Mark, Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People, p. 211.
[2] Ibid., p. 189.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., p. 194.
[5] McDermott, Gerald R., Israel Matters: Why Christians Must Think Differently About The People and the Land, p. 3.
[6] Ibid., p. 7.
[7] Brown, Michael L., Our Hands Are Stained With Blood: The Tragic Story of the Church and the Jewish People, p. 26.
[8] McDermott, Gerald R., Israel Matters: Why Christians Must Think Differently About The People and the Land, p. 10.
[9] Brown, Michael L., Our Hands Are Stained With Blood: The Tragic Story of the Church and the Jewish People, p. 28.
I am a blogger, writer, pastor, Director of Zion Romania Bible School, husband to Olguta, a father and, most importantly, a child of God. I also completed my studies at the King’s University where I earned a B.A. in Theology with a concentration in Messianic Jewish Studies. I love Israel and I love the ‘Jewishness’ of the Bible.
Leave a Reply