Luke 20.18: 'He who falls on that stone shall be broken'

[Felipe Augusto Ortiz]

What is the meaning of the last verse of today´s Gospel reading (Luke 20:9-18)? It says: Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

In the Explanation by the Blessed Theophylact it says that, "The Lord then makes reference to two destructions: first, the destruction of their which they suffered when they took offence at Christ, [I]for whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; and secondly, the destruction at the time of the captivity of Jerusalem, which was brought upon them by the Stone which they had despised; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."

In his Commentary on the Gospel of St Luke, St Cyril of Alexandria refers to both the Jews and those in general who reject Christ: "but breaking & destruction to those who have remained apart from this rational & spiritual union" [ie apart from Christ Who is the corner stone referred to in the previous verse]. "Those therefore who did not believe were broken."

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Hello,

I´m not sure whether this starts a new thread, but I would like to hear Orthodox views on the impact of such scriptural verses, their misinterpretation and misappropriation, and the relations between Orthodox Christianity and Judaism.

I am myself of partly Jewish ancestry, although I am an Orthodox Christian. I find it very disheartening when fellow Orthodox refer to my ancestors as "God-killers", "children of the devil", and, using such verses as "his blood be on us and on our children" to describe Jews as carrying collective blame for the shedding of our Saviour's blood.

It seems to me that Christ loves and forgives His children, and that means everybody. He knew that a prophet is not accepted in his own home, and forgave even from the cross. So why the two millenia of "Christian" antisemitism?

What is an appropriate attitude to Judaism and the Jews from an Orthodox perspective? Also, does anyone know of any objections to stating clearly that Jesus Himself was Jewish, at least according to the flesh, although He became the founder of a new faith and the fulfilment of the Law?

Yours in Christ,

Byron

[Eugene]

I think antisemitism penetrated the Christian civilisation due to reasons that has little to do with the true Christian Faith. The true Christian attitude toward Jews should be the attitude of the Apostle Paul who wanted to be deprived from Christ if it would help saving his Jewish brothers. In another place he also warned Christians not to judge Jews because, even though they don't accept Christ yet, they are still the children of Abraham. Chncerning this phrase "his blood be on us and on our children", IMHO, the Jews participated in the Pilate's court were just a small group of people - a tiny part of Jewish population, they did not represent the whole Jewish nation. So they could only speak for themselves and "His blood" could be only on those particular people present there but not on the whole Jewish nation. It is known that a large portion of Jewish population converted into Christianity and the first Christians were predominantly Jews. So, I beleive, any antisemitism in any form of hate or disrespect to Jewish people is incompatible with Christianity. Christian faith doesn't agree with Judaism, but this has nothing to do with hate or disrespect. So, when someone calling himself Christian call you "a god-killer", and you still love him, then "blessed are you when men shall say all manner of evel against you falsely for My name's sake".

In Christ,
Evgeny

[Herman Blaydoe]

Personally, I had always assumed that the crowd of Jews were speaking for all people, not just Jews. I guess I just assumed I was one of "us" too.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

It seems to me you are both right, Evgeny and Herman. Are these positive interpretations of Jews and Judaism to be found anywhere in the fathers however? And what about all the bad press given to St John Chrysostom on this issue?

Yours in Christ,

Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The Holy Fathers were almost always negative in relationship to the Jews. This was due to the simple fact that the Jews rejected Christ & still continued to do so. There is also due to the fact that at this time the identification of Roman Empire & Orthodox Christianity was made. One promoted & helped the other. Without this there could easily be a breakdown in the basic unity of the Empire. Stated positively it was felt that Orthodoxy was the best assurance for the unity & 'good properance in all things' of the Roman Empire. So there was always a tension in regards to not only Jews, but also all other non-Orthodox Christians & also Muslims.

We must be very careful however not to see the above as being the same as the anti-semitism of modern times. Anti-semitism is a racial theory based on the idea that a person's moral character is determined by race. As such it is certainly repugnant to what the Church teaches. The Holy Fathers certainly did not as a whole hold to any such racial type of teaching. They criticised Judaism on its religious basis seen from within the perspective of the Church- theirs' was not a racial criticism of a people.

Finally although the Holy Fathers certainly saw Judaism negatively this did not mean they forgot that all people are to be treated with Christian love. In the Letters of Barsanouphios & John (monks of Gaza 6th century) there is a question from a layman who is a farmer about how to treat his Jewish neighbour. One of the elders replies to the farmer (with a bit of good humour!) to go outside the next time it rains & watch the fields of his Jewish neighbour. If the next time it rains the rain stops at the field of his Jewish neighbour perhaps charity is not in order. But if it does rain equally on the Jewish farmer's fields as on yours then he is due all charity.

In Christ- Fr Raphael