Is it heretical to pray that Jews continue to follow the Old Covenant?

[SHW]

Because God is faithful to God’s covenants.

And, of course not (even Jews don’t pray for that)

God is faithful to His covenants, but man is not faithful to them so they break the covenants which makes them obsolete (no longer in force).

Some Jews are currently fervently praying for the temple to be rebuilt and for the animal sacrifices to be resumed.

These same Jews are now searching for an unblemished red heifer (its ashes are needed to purify the altar) in order to resume animal sacrifices. You can research it online if you want to learn more about it. Also, they are getting the temple furnishings ready for this third temple.

Not all Jews believe that a third temple should be built.

 

[diggerdomer]

Since Scripture is the Word of God, for translation from Greek to modern English, “obsolete” is the correct word.

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. RSV-CE

13 Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end. DRB (old English)

13 When he speaks of a “new” covenant, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing. NAB-CE

All three ^above^ quoted Scripture references are from approved Catholic Bibles.

The Jews broke their Covenant with God. When either one of the two covenanters breaks the covenant, it is no longer in force. “Everlasting” means for the “duration” of the covenant. Noah never broke his covenant with God. The rainbow we see today attests to this fact.

“God” has never broken a covenant with man. “Man” has repeatedly broken his/their covenants with God. When men obey the covenant/God, then they receive blessings. When a covenant is broken, man is subjected to the curses which are attached to the breaking of the covenant. A new covenant must then be made in order to get back into God’s good graces after the old covenant has been broken.

Jesus who is both God and Man made the New Covenant with God and He will never break His covenant with God the Father. This is why the New Covenant will never end and the Old Covenant is truly obsolete. It is no longer in force whether the Jews know this fact or believe this fact. The Jews broke the Old Covenant.

Abraham never broke His covenant with God, this is why God promised him that a remnant of his posterity will be saved before Jesus returns at His Second Coming. Some of this Jewish remnant already converted to Christianity (New Covenant) such as Peter, Paul, John, etc. 2000 years ago. The rest of this Jewish remnant will come into the Church (New Covenant) shortly before Jesus returns because this is God’s promise to Abraham. The Church is Jesus’ Bride. The “New Jerusalem” in the Book of Revelation is the perfected Church.(Ephesians 5:22-23, Revelation 21:9-10)

Isaiah 10:22
Though your people, O Israel, be like the sand by the sea,
only a remnant will return.
Destruction has been decreed,
overwhelming and righteous.

God will permit only a “remnant” of Abraham’s descendants to return to the land of Israel because of their disobedience.

Romans 11:1-2
I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.

Paul states that he is a part of this Israel “remnant” group that is to be saved. (However, personally, he has responsibility for his own actions and he can be rejected from entering heaven by his own personal sins.)

Isaiah 11:11-12
In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious. 11** In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second** time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.

12 He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth.

The Jews were exiled when Jerusalem/temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. and scattered into many other nations and they will return a second time to the land of Israel. (They are actually already there now since 1948.) This prophecy has been fulfilled.

Isaiah 28:4-6
That fading flower, his glorious beauty,
set on the head of a fertile valley,
will be like a fig ripe before harvest—
as soon as someone sees it and takes it in his hand,
he swallows it.

5 In that day the LORD Almighty
will be a glorious crown,
a beautiful wreath
for the remnant of his people.

6 He will be a spirit of justice
to him who sits in judgment,
a source of strength
to those who turn back the battle at the gate.

Jesus returns soon for His Second Coming after the Jews return to Israel. Jesus never rules on earth in the State of Israel. The earth is but His footstool, never His throne. (Acts 7:49) We do not know how long “soon” is because a day to the Lord is like a thousand years or a thousand years is like a day. (2 Peter 3:8)

The fact that humans have repeatedly broken covenants with God does not make such covenants obsolete.

 

[diggerdomer]

Some Jews are currently fervently praying for the temple to be rebuilt and for the animal sacrifices to be resumed.

Wow I didn’t know that. I have many Jewish friends. Can you give an example? Thanks.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

With all the personal interpretations of scripture and Church teaching, I am reminded of my protestant days. It is only Christ Who says someone can’t enter into eternal life. St Thomas Aquinas denotes the philosophical distinction between act and potentiality in regards to who are members of the Church and cannot be reduced to a form or mode.

Summa III, 8, p3.

This is the difference between the natural body of man and the Church’s mystical body, that the members of the natural body are all together, and the members of the mystical are not all together–neither as regards their natural being, since the body of the Church is made up of the men who have been from the beginning of the world until its end–nor as regards their supernatural being, since, of those who are at any one time, some there are who are without grace, yet will afterwards obtain it, and some have it already. We must therefore consider the members of the mystical body not only as they are in act, but as they are in potentiality. Nevertheless, some are in potentiality who will never be reduced to act, and some are reduced at some time to act; and this according to the triple class, of which the first is by faith, the second by the charity of this life, the third by the fruition of the life to come. Hence we must say that if we take the whole time of the world in general, Christ is the Head of all men, but diversely. For, first and principally, He is the Head of such as are united to Him by glory; secondly, of those who are actually united to Him by charity; thirdly, of those who are actually united to Him by faith; fourthly, of those who are united to Him merely in potentiality, which is not yet reduced to act, yet will be reduced to act according to Divine predestination; fifthly, of those who are united to Him in potentiality, which will never be reduced to act; such are those men existing in the world, who are not predestined, who, however, on their departure from this world, wholly cease to be members of Christ, as being no longer in potentiality to be united to Christ.

The Church is a mystery, a mystical body that is not only more than what we see, it is more than can be fathomed. Jesus says, when asked who can be saved, “With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible”. Prayer and sacrifice that the Jews, or anyone else, are saved is more important than semantics and contradistinction in legalism about who is, to our limited perspective, saved. Even the Church doesn’t know, they can only report what is revealed as to what we must do to be saved.

 

[SHW]

The fact that humans have repeatedly broken covenants with God does not make such covenants obsolete.

Yes, it does. God can have mercy on those who break His covenants, but He is no longer bound by them.

 

[SHW]

Wow I didn’t know that. I have many Jewish friends. Can you give an example? Thanks.

Sure.
**
GOLD MENORAH NOW READY FOR THE THIRD TEMPLE**
grantjeffrey.com/article/golden_menorah.htm
Excerpt:

Rabbi Ariel explained, “It, or other Menorahs, will be consecrated when the Temple is rebuilt.” The beautiful Menorah, a seven branched candellabra, is six and a half feet in height and was constructed with more than 92 pounds of pure gold.

Many web pages about Third Temple preparations can be accessed from this page:
squidoo.com/templejerusalem

Future Temple Jewish Priests Get Fitted For Holy Garments
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/126721

Jews Preparing to Rebuild Temple
http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/jews_preparing_to_rebuild_temple
Excerpt:

Since the fall of the second Temple in Jerusalem (in 70 AD), Jews have been praying faithfully for 2,000 years for a third temple to be rebuilt. Gershom Salomon leads a small, although dedicated, group known as The Temple Mount Faithful who want to lay the foundation stone for the third temple. They’ve already consecrated a stone anointed with water from the Biblical Pool of Siloam. Although they wanted to place the stone at the Temple Mount, their attempts were stopped. Not only Arab Muslims, but also Jewish leaders stood in their way, fearing this would lead to disaster, destroying the Dome of the Rock (now held under Muslim authority.)

 

[una_fides]

The fact that humans have repeatedly broken covenants with God does not make such covenants obsolete.

I’ve been following along reading all the comments but unfortunately haven’t had time to comment. I’d like to hopefully help the discussion here by pointing back to something already explained earlier which is that the reason the old covenant has become obsolete as Scripture says is that it has been fulfilled. The old was also never able to save anyone as it was imperfect or incomplete. The old covenant in terms of the legal ceremonies has been abolished. Only the moral law remains in effect, the moral law that transcends the rituals or even the specific commandments, as they too have been fulfilled by the new law. Just because the Church today is using politically correct language and stating things in ways as least offensive and easily acceptable as possible does not mean that her teachings have changed. The Scriptures cited and their interpretations are not just “private” interpretations; they are based rooted and grounded in Tradition. Popes have instructed us as to how Scripture is to be understood and that is in accord with the teachings of the fathers and constant teachings of holy mother Church, whose dogmatic teachings do not change or evolve. Only her disciplines change, but her defined dogmas cannot.

 

[gentle_atheist]

Notwithstanding Church dogma, you have to look at the prayer itself:

“Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.”

What, exactly, are Catholics praying for?

“…that they may continue to grow in the love of his name…” Whose name? The name of Jesus? Do Jews love the name of Jesus?

“…that they may continue to grow … in faithfulness to his covenant.” Which covenant? The New Covenant? Do Jews even accept the New Covenant? If not, then how can they “continue to grow” in their faithfulness to it?

Let’s modify the prayer for clarity and see which version makes more sense:

1. “Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name, Jesus, and in faithfulness to the New Covenant.”
2. “Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name, Yahweh, and in faithfulness to the Old Covenant.”

The first version makes no sense at all. The second version makes perfect sense. But this is a Catholic prayer promulgated by a Catholic pope recited in the Catholic Church on the most solemn day of the Catholic calendar. The second version – the only version that makes sense – is heretical. But the Holy Spirit protects the Church from heresy, so the prayer can’t be heretical.

It can’t. But it is. Like it or not, Catholics are praying for Jews to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and resume animal sacrifices.

 

[SHW]

Like it or not, Catholics are praying for Jews to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and resume animal sacrifices.

Absolutely not. To resume animal sacrifices would be an abomination to God. Your personal opinion is a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine never changes.

His Son was “once and for all” offered in perpetuity to God in atonement for sin. It is the perfect sacrifice. Jesus’ death fulfilled the Old Testament. It is finished. The Old Covenant is no longer in force whether the “present” Jews believe it or not.

The Catholic Mass re-presents this same sacrifice of Jesus to God the Father. It is not a new sacrifice. It is the exact same one. It is re-presented to God in atonement for sins. Revelation 5:6 , Matthew 26:27-28, Luke 22:19

“Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.”

Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is also the Word of God. The Jews do not realize that Jesus is the Word of God. They think that they are “hearing” only God the Father. We hope that they will to continue to grow in the love of his name (which also means to accept Jesus as God and Messiah and as God’s Word) and in faithfulness to his covenant (of love). This is a process. The hope is that they will also accept Jesus as Messiah and His New Covenant.

It is a “covenant” of “eternal love.” This is not specifically the Old Covenant nor the New Covenant. Many covenants were made, but most people are familiar with only the two major ones which we call the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

God loves all that He has created/made. It is an “eternal love.” A “covenant of love” with His creation.

Genesis 1:27
And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

1 John 4:8
He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

God is love, He made man in His image and likeness. This is the covenant of eternal love. God continually renews His covenant of eternal love for mankind. He even chose Abraham as the father of His chosen people (and others also) in an extra special way to benefit more specifically from His covenant of eternal love .

 

[una_fides]

Absolutely not. To resume animal sacrifices would be an abomination to God. Your personal opinion is a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine never changes.

His Son was “once and for all” offered in perpetuity to God in atonement for sin. It is the perfect sacrifice. Jesus’ death fulfilled the Old Testament. It is finished. The Old Covenant is no longer in force whether the “present” Jews believe it or not.

The Catholic Mass re-presents this same sacrifice of Jesus to God the Father. It is not a new sacrifice. It is the exact same one. It is re-presented to God in atonement for sins. Revelation 5:6 , Matthew 26:27-28, Luke 22:19

“Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.”

Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is also the Word of God. The Jews do not realize that Jesus is the Word of God. They think that they are “hearing” only God the Father. We hope that they will to continue to grow in the love of his name (which also means to accept Jesus as God and Messiah and as God’s Word) and in faithfulness to his covenant (of love). This is a process. The hope is that they will also accept Jesus as Messiah and His New Covenant.

It is a “covenant” of “eternal love.” This is not specifically the Old Covenant nor the New Covenant. Many covenants were made, but most people are familiar with only the two major ones which we call the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

God loves all that He has created/made. It is an “eternal love.” A “covenant of love” with His creation.

Genesis 1:27
And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

1 John 4:8
He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

God is love, He made man in His image and likeness. This is the covenant of eternal love. God continually renews His covenant of eternal love for mankind. He even chose Abraham as the father of His chosen people (and others also) in an extra special way to benefit more specifically from His covenant of eternal love .

Very interesting theory. The prayer theologically doesn’t make sense to be referring to the old and does not grammatically seem to be referring to the new so this thrd option could possibly be a solilution if the prayer is referring to some universal type of “covenant of love” which is neither referring to the old or new covenants. Where in Catholic theaching does it referr to this “covenant of love”? Isn’t the New and only salvific covenant through Christ Jesus God’s perfect covenant of love? When Christ shed his blood on the Cross was not this his covenant in his blood that demonstrated his love for mankind? I just don’t see the Church referring to this vague concept of a love covenant that is not in reference to the New Covenant. Do you have any support from Church teaching explaining what this “covenant of love” is referring to specifically?
Even if this idea was what the Church had in mind, that would still demonstrate the problematic vague wording that needs to be revised because it definitely gives many people the wrong impression.

 

[SHW]

Very interesting theory. The prayer theologically doesn’t make sense to be referring to the old and does not grammatically seem to be referring to the new so this thrd option could possibly be a solilution if the prayer is referring to some universal type of “covenant of love” which is neither referring to the old or new covenants. Where in Catholic theaching does it referr to this “covenant of love”? Isn’t the New and only salvific covenant through Christ Jesus God’s perfect covenant of love? When Christ shed his blood on the Cross was not this his covenant in his blood that demonstrated his love for mankind? I just don’t see the Church referring to this vague concept of a love covenant that is not in reference to the New Covenant. Do you have any support from Church teaching explaining what this “covenant of love” is referring to specifically?
Even if this idea was what the Church had in mind, that would still demonstrate the problematic vague wording that needs to be revised because it definitely gives many people the wrong impression.

God’s love for mankind (God loves all that He has made) manifested in God’s covenant promises (covenant of love) to Abraham and his descendants. God promised that a remnant of Abraham’s posterity would be saved no matter what. Some of his descendants are on earth right now. A remnant of Abraham’s descendants will join the Church (New Covenant) in the very last days shortly before Jesus’ Second Coming. (Romans 9:27-28) This is an ongoing covenant because Abraham never broke his covenant with God (he obeyed God) while he was alive (of course he never broke it after he died either).

This “covenant of love” is actually explained in the Statement of Principles for Catholic-Jewish Dialogue in bullet #1. Jesus’ necessary salvific sacrifice for all mankind is explained in bullet #2.

usccb.org/seia/StatementofPrinciples.pdf

For explanation of this “covenant of love” in the Catechism, please see:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/992.htm

Some people will unknowingly or knowingly misinterpret Church documents. That is just the way it is.

 

[diggerdomer]

I’ve been following along reading all the comments but unfortunately haven’t had time to comment. I’d like to hopefully help the discussion here by pointing back to something already explained earlier which is that the reason the old covenant has become obsolete as Scripture says is that it has been fulfilled. The old was also never able to save anyone as it was imperfect or incomplete. The old covenant in terms of the legal ceremonies has been abolished. Only the moral law remains in effect, the moral law that transcends the rituals or even the specific commandments, as they too have been fulfilled by the new law. Just because the Church today is using politically correct language and stating things in ways as least offensive and easily acceptable as possible does not mean that her teachings have changed. The Scriptures cited and their interpretations are not just “private” interpretations; they are based rooted and grounded in Tradition. Popes have instructed us as to how Scripture is to be understood and that is in accord with the teachings of the fathers and constant teachings of holy mother Church, whose dogmatic teachings do not change or evolve. Only her disciplines change, but her defined dogmas cannot.

I still don’t think obsolete is a good word, the Church doesn’t use it, and it seems to contradict what the Church does teach (e.g. CCC 71 God made an everlasting covenant with Noah and with all living beings (cf. Gen 9:16). It will remain in force as long as the world lasts.). “Everlasting” and “obsolete” seem contradictory to me.

 

[una_fides]

I still don’t think obsolete is a good word, the Church doesn’t use it, and it seems to contradict what the Church does teach (e.g. CCC 71 God made an everlasting covenant with Noah and with all living beings (cf. Gen 9:16). It will remain in force as long as the world lasts.). “Everlasting” and “obsolete” seem contradictory to me.

The everlasting covenant is the new covenant. The old has been fulfilled and completed in the new and as such is no longer in force. Hence the inerrant Word of God referrs to it as “obsolete.” Just because the Church today does not use that same wording does not make that wording incorrect or errant, as such would be impossible since it’s right from Scripture. And again we must bear in mind that the Jews are our enemies for the sake of the gospel.

 

[una_fides]

This “covenant of love” is actually explained in the Statement of Principles for Catholic-Jewish Dialogue in bullet #1. Jesus’ necessary salvific sacrifice for all mankind is explained in bullet #2.

usccb.org/seia/StatementofPrinciples.pdf

For explanation of this “covenant of love” in the Catechism, please see:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/992.htm

Some people will unknowingly or knowingly misinterpret Church documents. That is just the way it is.

I will reread through those docs later when I get some time. Regarding misinterpreting, if the Church was referring to God’s covenant of love then the prayer should have been more specific. Many people including many priests and bishops are interpreting this prayer to mean that the Jews should just continue to follow the old covenant and should not or do not need to convert to Christ and enter into his sole ark of salvation, his one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. How hard would it have been to add the words “of love” to the prayer to specify? Instead we are left with a vague prayer that continues to be abused and cited today to spread heresies.

 

[diggerdomer]

And again we must bear in mind that the Jews are our enemies for the sake of the gospel.

Oh? And where does the Church teach that?

 

[wisdomseeker]

ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/zfathnoncaths.HTM

is this a new document confirming that the Old Covenant still in place? am i understanding this correctly?

 

[chosen_people]

The everlasting covenant is the new covenant. The old has been fulfilled and completed in the new and as such is no longer in force. Hence the inerrant Word of God referrs to it as “obsolete.” Just because the Church today does not use that same wording does not make that wording incorrect or errant, as such would be impossible since it’s right from Scripture. And again we must bear in mind that the Jews are our enemies for the sake of the gospel.

“The Jews” are “our enemies” and that is a divine religious Catholic imperative (“for the sake of the gospel”)?

It therefore follows that every Jew is an enemy to every Catholic and to the Catholic Church?

The only remaining question is how to deal with the enemy? One may perhaps be guided by the words of St. John Chrysostom:

Although such beasts [Jews] are unfit for work, they are fit for killing . . . fit for slaughter. (I.II.5)

[The Synagogue] is not merely a lodging place for robbers and cheats but also for demons. This is true not only of the synagogues but also of the souls of the Jews. (I.IV.2)

Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? (I.VII.1) (St. John Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos)

or St. Jerome:

“If you call [the synagogue] a brothel, a den of vice, the devil’s refuge, Satan’s fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever else you will, you are still saying less than it deserves.”

or

St. Gregory of Nyssa: " [Jews are] murderers of the Lord, assassins of the prophets, rebels against God, God haters, . . . advocates of the devil, race of vipers, slanderers, calumniators, dark-minded people, leaven of the Pharisees, sanhedrin of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners, and haters of righteousness"

 

[una_fides]

Oh? And where does the Church teach that?

The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. If you would like to dispute that, I can send you a plethora or sources.

Romans 11:25-28 For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery (lest you should be wise in your own conceits) that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. And this is to them my covenant: when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers.

Notice also that it says that God’s covenant with them is when he shall take away their sins, meaning when they shall come into the Church, the sole ark of salvation. Please read my earlier posts. I already cited tons of Scriptures relevant to our discussion.

 

[una_fides]

chosen_people:
“The Jews” are “our enemies” and that is a divine religious Catholic imperative (“for the sake of the gospel”)?

It therefore follows that every Jew is an enemy to every Catholic and to the Catholic Church?

The only remaining question is how to deal with the enemy? One may perhaps be guided by the words of St. John Chrysostom:

Although such beasts [Jews] are unfit for work, they are fit for killing . . . fit for slaughter. (I.II.5)

[The Synagogue] is not merely a lodging place for robbers and cheats but also for demons. This is true not only of the synagogues but also of the souls of the Jews. (I.IV.2)

Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? (I.VII.1) (St. John Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos)

or St. Jerome:

“If you call [the synagogue] a brothel, a den of vice, the devil’s refuge, Satan’s fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever else you will, you are still saying less than it deserves.”

or

St. Gregory of Nyssa: " [Jews are] murderers of the Lord, assassins of the prophets, rebels against God, God haters, . . . advocates of the devil, race of vipers, slanderers, calumniators, dark-minded people, leaven of the Pharisees, sanhedrin of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners, and haters of righteousness"
Jews are enemies of the gospel of Christ, as they teach lies concerning him. You earlier denied the Divinity of Christ and said that it was some made up fairytale borrowed from some pagan god-man idea. Jews deny that Jesus is the Christ, their Messiah, and as such are the enemies of Christians in reference to the truth of God’s teaching and revelation.

The wording in some of those quotes you provided actually isn’t that far out there, but you need to understand the context. Here are some of my earlier posts with some Scriptures where Christ and St. Steven said similar things: POST 72 POST 73 POST 75

I would like to know, however, your source for the first quote you provided. Do you have a url link perhaps? Thanks.

 

[Shin]

Generally, I find when the New Testament saints use the same scriptural language of God from Old and New Testament against the Jews when they are rebellious, people today do not understand that they are doing this and condemn it.

But such language is also used against Christians and non-Christians who are against Christ, and goes to the spiritual effects of it, though it is true the more especially you are chosen by God the more especially damaging it is not to follow.

Three doctors of the Church cited above, there is much similar from the rest of the Fathers and Doctors, but it has to be understood on a spiritual level. People who reject it because it does not fit the language of the times and condemn it had better watch out because of the scriptures and spiritual meaning, and also seek to understand the context of the times is not the context of today’s standards.

Or read the Talmud for context.

The statements are excerpted from: St. John Chrysostom - Eight Homilies Against the Jews.

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God’s grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: “It is no fair to take the children’s bread and to cast it to the dogs”. Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs.

(2) But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision”. Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? “But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God”.

(3) Nothing is more miserable than those people who never failed to attack their own salvation. When there was need to observe the Law, they trampled it under foot. Now that the Law has ceased to bind, they obstinately strive to observe it. What could be more pitiable that those who provoke God not only by transgressing the Law but also by keeping it? On this account Stephen said: “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart, you always resist the Holy Spirit”, not only by transgressing the Law but also by wishing to observe it at the wrong time.