Marcionism, Orthodoxy, and the Jewish Question

The question of Christianity’s relation to reaction, white identity, and Judaism has come up enough over the time that I’ve been involved in the reactosphere, and especially lately, that I feel I should articulate my own position on the topic.

My goal on this post is to defend orthodox, traditional Christianity against charges by well-meaning, pro-White Rightists that Christianity is false, harmful, or unsuitable for the white man for any of various reasons pertaining to its relationship to Judaism.

The first charge is the less serious one and the easier to answer; to wit, that Christianity is a deliberate, conscious plot by some past or present group of Jews to destroy the white man.

This charge is ludicrous on its face and I’ll only spend a little bit of time addressing it before I get down to the other, and far more viable, anti-Semitic objection to Christianity.

The simple fact is that historically, the concept of ‘whiteness’ is entirely a product of Christendom. There was no notion of pan-European solidarity against or above or in contrast to non-European peoples before Christianity. Christianity predates any idea of ‘the white man’ for Jews to hate.

The second, and far more salient, objection, is that Christianity, by its doctrinal or cultural nature, undermines white ethnic sentiment and/or elevates Jews above whites and promotes an unhealthy philo-Semitism.

I will take these objections in reverse order. The first, that Christianity promotes an unhealthy philo-Semitism that allows Jews to take advantage of Europeans, is, I think, founded in a provincial view of history. While it is certainly true that Evangelical Protestants do hold a rather self-destructive philo-Semitism, it is also true that this attitude is neither justified by historic Christian doctrine nor (more to the point) is it the norm within Christendom historically.

Examples of the historic attitude of Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and even the less pwned Protestants toward the Jews could be multiplied almost without end, but here are just a few:

We cannot prevent Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we can never sanction it. Jews have not recognized Our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people. They had ample time to acknowledge Christ‘s divinity without pressure, but they didn’t. Should the Jews manage to set foot on the once promised old-new land, the missionaries of the Church would stand prepared to baptize them. Jerusalem cannot be placed in Jewish hands.’ – Pope St Pius X

The characteristics of the Jewish race are parasitic’ – Konstantin Pobedonstsev, advisor to Tsar St Nicholas II and Tsar Alexander III of blessed memory

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: [the Jews] became dogs, and [the Gentiles] became the children.’

‘[T]he synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts.’

If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place.’ – St John Chrysostom

‘Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self­glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.’ – Martin Luther

And I think the Jews would be as surprised as we are to learn that Christianity is merely a tool for their benefit. Jews, in fact, have long maintained that we are their great persecutors. ‘The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken their toll,’ remarked Benjamin Disraeli once.

Christian philo-Semitism is actually quite a recent phenomenon. If Christianity, by design, exalts the Jew at the expense of the Gentile and compels the Christian to defer to the Jew, to love the Jew, and to act in the interests of the Jew — well, let’s just say it took Christians a damned long time to figure out that aspect of their religion.

It is tempting, perhaps, to adopt Marcionism, a heresy that teaches that the God of the Old Testament is not the God of the New Testament, or some variation thereupon, in an effort to reconcile a hostility toward Jews with an adherence to Christ. At this point it is typical to emphasise the ‘Greek’ or ‘Germanic’ or otherwise ‘European’ aspects of Christianity.

This does not solve the problem. The New Testament does not leave any room to deny the Old. To believe in a Christ who is not affiliated with the God of the Old Testament is to make up one’s own Christ, one who bears at best a vague resemblance to the Christ described in the canonical Gospels.

Now, I have often said that Christianity is the religion of paradox, and that attempts to resolve the paradoxes within Christianity (such as the dual nature of Christ or the triune nature of the Godhead) by simply throwing out one or the other side of the dilemma are properly termed ‘heresy’.

But here I am not even sure that we have a legitimate paradox. Certainly, the majority of Evangelicals, and even a great many Catholics and Orthodox, have been infected by a virulent philo-Semitism. They put the Jews on a pedestal. They say ridiculous things like that the Jews are our ‘older brothers’ (indeed — they are our older brothers in precisely the same meaningless sense that Ishmael is the older brother to our forefather Isaac), they participate in Jewish feasts, light menorahs, et cetera. And their attitude toward Jewry — and toward race in general — is certainly incompatible with white ethnonationalism.

But what is the real disease here? Is Christianity the problem? Is secular culture less Jew-friendly and more white-friendly?

In fairness, it may be marginally less Jew-friendly; the left tends not to be as rabidly pro-Israel as the Religious Right, though no less worshipful of domestic Jews. But it is certainly not more pro-white ethnocentrism.

The Christian Church is not a magical institution that protects its members from all influence by the Zeitgeist. When we are asking ‘what political and social views does Christianity promote?’ we cannot simply ask ‘what political and social views do Christians hold right now?’ without asking whether those views are unique to Christians or clearly derived from distinctly Christian sources.

Are modern traditional Christians philo-Semites? Yes, of course. They caught the bug from heretics — everyone did. But there’s nothing inherently philo-Semitic about traditional Christianity per se — indeed, just the opposite.

Likewise the claim that Christianity’s ‘universalist’ leanings render it incompatible with white thedishness. This simply is not true. In fact, the Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church declares:

Christian patriotism may be expressed at the same time with regard to a nation as an ethnic community and as a community of its citizens. The Orthodox Christian is called to love his fatherland, which has a territorial dimension, and his brothers by blood who live everywhere in the world. This love is one of the ways of fulfilling God’s commandment of love to one’s neighbour which includes love to one’s family, fellow-tribesmen and fellow-citizens.

What must be understood is that life has both a universal and a particular aspect. Christianity itself cannot be limited to being solely an expression of white thedishness — or any other people’s thedishness for that matter. But it does not preclude that thedishness — indeed it encourages it. Christianity, at the highest level of abstraction, is concerned with universal truth and with the salvation of all men. But these are not the only concerns of individual, particular, actual Christians. Orthodox Christianity recognises the right of all peoples to thedishness — and that includes whites. It is not clear to me what more than this white nationalists want, unless it is a religion that is entirely a means to their political aims.

Perhaps the claimed problem is that it is destructive to white interests to hold up the Jews as ‘God’s chosen people’. But that demands the question: ‘chosen for what?’ The answer is that the Jews were chosen to bring forth the God-Man, Jesus Christ, which purpose they have fulfilled. After bringing Him forth, they rejected Him, mocked Him, and crucified Him. At that point they forfeited whatever spiritual seniority they might otherwise have had over us Gentiles. The current Jewish religion is the only one in the world (with Islam’s debatable exception) whose kernel is the rejection of Christ — other religions reject Him by implication, but only the Jews make the explicit rejection of Him the definition of their religion.

When a white man rejects Christianity because he hates Jewry, the Jews are pleased. Jews dont hate Europeans because they have light skin, or come from Europe, or are the ‘bestest race in the whole wide world’, or something. They hate us because they hate Christ — and we, more than any other race, have embraced Him and spread His Gospel to the ends of the Earth. When we cease to do that, Jews win. They do not win (at least not quite as much) if we embrace Marcionism, but Marcionism is incoherent, and it answers a non-problem. There simply is no contradiction between the enduring, historic doctrines and principles of traditional Christianity and either anti-Semitism or white thedishness.


8 comments on “Marcionism, Orthodoxy, and the Jewish Question

  1. Enjoyed this. I can’t see that any rational argument can be put that Christianity is tainted due to its Judaic origins; I can clearly see that an overtly philo-semitic position will taint ones Christianity. Even within the Protestant side of things, the philo-Semitism on display in the USA is quite remarkable, disturbing, and to some extent inexplicable to those of us located at the other end of the earth.

    The nature of anti-semitism has always seemed to me, at least in recent history, to be class-oriented rather than ethnically or religiously based — a simple jealousy of the successful ‘other’ that holds themselves apart by means of an ethno-religio-cultural triad.

  2. “indeed — they are our older brothers in precisely the same meaningless sense that Ishmael is the older brother to our forefather Isaac”

    “…the Jews were chosen to bring forth the God-Man, Jesus Christ, which purpose they have fulfilled. After bringing Him forth, they rejected Him, mocked Him, and crucified Him. At that point they forfeited whatever spiritual seniority they might otherwise have had over us Gentiles.”

    What terrible statements. Jesus was, is, and always will be the King of the Jews. The moment he ceases to be King of the Jews is the moment he ceases to be the Christ for that is what it is to be Christ: the greater Son of David who sits on the throne of his father David.

    Mk 15:26 “And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.”

    Lk 23:38 “And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.”

    Matt. 27:37 “And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.”

    Jn. 29:19-22 “Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross.ting was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.”

    At the moment of his exaltation as a sacrifice for the whole world, our Lord received this title.

    Now, in his ascended and glorified state, he sits enthroned, ruling from Mount Zion the heavenly Jerusalem, surrounded by the assembly of the firstborn (the OT elect–see Heb. 12:22-24). Next to him are twelve thrones, upon which the twelve apostles sit judging the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. Matt. 19:28).

    You, as a Bible believer should already know what St. Paul says:

    “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an *Israelite*, of the seed of Abraham, *of the tribe of Benjamin*. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew” (Rom. 11:1-2).

    “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom. 11:5).

    “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?” (Rom. 11:11-12)

    “Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, *but the root thee*” (Rom. 11:18).

    “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob” (Rom. 11:26).

    “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: *but as touching the election*, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (Rom. 11:28-29).

    “For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things” (Rom. 15:27).

    Our Lord Jesus Christ is a Jew. Salvation is of the Jews. We have a duty to honor our Savior and our Jewish forefathers in faith as Israelites, to care especially for Hebrew Christians, and to pray for the conversion of the Jews in view of the worldwide blessing it will signal. None of this needs be detrimental to our own European heritage.

  3. […] Reaction, Jews, and Christianity. Related: Jews and divided loyalties. […]

  4. Yes, I am very familiar with it. It was directed against the elders, scribes (or Pharisees) and chief priests (Matt. 21:45, Mk. 12:12, Lk. 20:19). They are the wicked husbandmen. The vineyard is the House of Israel (cf. Isa. 5:7). Jesus is saying that the stewardship of Israel will be given to other rulers. It’s about the abolition of the old covenant & its leadership, not about the disinheriting of Israel itself.

    • The abolition of the Old Covenant *is* the disinheriting of ethnic Israel, or at least the greater part of it, which refused to receive Christ (the part that did receive Him of course was not disinherited, but those people are now known simply as ‘Christians’).

      ‘For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

      Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

      That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.’

  5. It makes a very great difference whether Israel itself or whether just the greater part of it (at present) is disinherited. The whole is not the sum of its parts. A man crippled due to the cutting off of his limbs is still a man. A nation reduced to a small number is still a nation.

    Was Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob disinherited? No. Was Jesus? No. Was Paul the Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1)? No.

    When one says ethnic Israel is disinherited without qualification, without acknowledging the elect remnant (Rom. 11:5), and without acknowledging the spiritual debt and obligation Gentile Christians owe to the Jews (Rom. 15:27), God’s faithfulness to his calling & promises is called into question.

    The calling of Israel preceded the establishment of the old Mosaic covenant (cf. Gal. 3:17). Covenants can be changed, but the divine guarantees are eternal. It is in the perpetuation of the calling & promises that continuity is achieved in the historic succession of the divine covenants.

    The idea that Jewish Christians are just ‘Christians’ is unbiblical, unchristian, and unreactionary in my view. There are American Christians, British Christians, Nigerian Christians, Russian Christians, etc. Christian fellowship may be a higher association and deeper spiritual identity than the various ethnicities, but it doesn’t negate them. Grace restores and perfects nature; it doesn’t exclude or destroy it.

    Furthermore, the election of national Israel doesn’t derogate from the election of other nations, rather, it grounds the possibility of it and guarantees God’s favor to the faithful offspring of any family, clan, or nation that converts. Think of Arsacid Armenia, the Roman empire after Constantine, Holy Russia, even Christian America. The first object of the Great Commission is nations, not individuals (Mat. 28:19).

    The greatness of the new covenant established by our Lord is that it empowers genuine obedience and thereby ensures the faithfulness of Israel and further enriches her by joining the Gentile nations to her.

    On my understanding, Romans 9:8 can be read in either two ways that are consistent.with my understanding:

    1. ‘That is, They which are the children of the [unregenerate] flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.’

    2. ‘That is, They which are the children of the flesh [only], these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.’

    Returning to the parable you cited, your interpretation necessitates the destruction of the vineyard itself as well as the wicked husbandmen. But, I counter that if the calling of ethnic Israel–the faithful physical offspring of Abraham–has been revoked then the promises of God have failed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s