Historical Factors Until The Time Of Constantine Affecting The Church's Appropriation Of Israel's Blessings
Dr. H.Wayne House
At the entrances of many Gothic cathedrals throughout Europeone may observe female statutes which are personifications of Ecclesia (theChurch) and Synagoga (the Synagogue). One notices that Ecclesia wears a crown,looking straight ahead, holding her head in a triumphant pose. On the otherhand, Synagoga, her head bowed, having lost her crown and holding a brokenstaff and wearing a blindfold, stands defeated and rejected.[1] Thesepersonifications symbolize the consensus perspective of the church from themiddle of the second century A.D. until the present day, with few exceptions. Origen expresses the move from the people of Israel to the church of Christ: "For what nation is in exile from their own metropolis, and from the placesacred to the worship of their fathers, save the Jews alone?"[2] Thisposes a problem often not debated in the seeming "magic" of the restoration ofIsrael, namely, the dispersion of a nation among the nations.
Throughout most of the period ofthe New Testament the recognition of Jesus and the apostles as Jews, and theimportance of the Jerusalem church, kept in check any Gentile Christiantendency toward the denigration of Israel or the Jewish-Christian portion ofthe church. It was after all from this church that Gentile-Christians hadtheir beginnings. Massive changes occurred, however, in the last severaldecades of the first century. The passing of the apostles, the destruction ofthe Jewish people and homeland in A.D. 70 and finally A.D. 135 signaled formany Gentile believers the end of the promises to Israel, a judgment from God. She would never rise from this ashheap to be restored to the grandeur andgreatness prophesied by the prophets for her. Her rejection of God's Son,Jesus the Messiah, had caused God to set her aside for another people, thechurch, who would receive all those blessings originally intended for Hispeople. Israel, the church began to hold, had been replaced by the church. Theblessings-the land, kingdom, covenants-intended for the physical seed ofAbraham had been turned over to his spiritual seed. Christian writers began tosee the church as the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises to the peopleof Israel.
The church's position on the future of Israel was influencedby misunderstanding of "in-house" discussion of the biblical writersand the Jewish community, the anti-Christian response of some Jews to Christiansufferings, including the encouragement of the persecution, and the developmentof a non-literal hermeneutic. The church began to develop an anti-Jewishattitude and believe itself to be the true inheritor of the eschatologicalblessings prophesied concerning the people of Israel. This theology has cometo be known as replacement theology. The intent of this paper is to explorethe reasons for the rise of this thinking from the time of the Zealot revolt(A.D. 66) and the triumphalism that occurred in the fourth century, afterConstantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.Before examining these historical reasons, though, we will first look at whatis meant by replacement theology and the nature of the promises to Israel whichsupposedly the church has become the recipient.
Introduction to the Problem Regarding the Church'sAppropriation of the Eschatological Blessings to Israel
Replacement theology
Its meaning
Many Christian scholars in our day advocate a view of Israeland the church known as Replacement Theology, what Tuvya Zaretsky prefers tocall supersessionism.[3] Walter Kaiser has defined it thus: "Replacement theology, then, declared that the Church, Abraham's spiritualseed, has replaced national Israel in that it had transcended and fulfilled theterms of the covenant given to Israel, which covenant Israel had lost becauseof obedience."[4] Because the church fulfills the covenant, it isexpected that she receives the blessings that attend that covenant. Essentially the view is that the church has replaced national Israel as therecipient of the blessings of God and that the church has fulfilled terms ofthe covenants given to Israel but which they rejected.[5]
Its origin
Those who would seek to support the idea that the churchestablished by Christ has taken over the promises once given to the nation ofIsrael necessarily must find support in the writings of the New Testament andthe understanding of such ideas at the earliest stages of the growth ofChristianity. That this thinking has adherents, at least in some sense, in thesecond century and became essentially the only understanding of this nexusbetween the church and Israel by the time of Constantine cannot provide therequired bricks from which to build this theological building of replacementtheology. One must also find solid evidence for such a view in the NewTestament writings.
Unfortunately, the dilemma for replacement theology is thatboth in the New Testament and in the earliest periods of the ancient churchsuch a perspective is largely absent. One begins to find the concept of thechurch taking Israel's place in the prophecies of the Old Testament only aftercertain major events: 1) after the Jewish people ceased to be the primarysource from which the theology of the New Testament sprang; 2) after those wholearned from the apostles had died and new problems faced the largely Gentilechurch; 3) after several non-Jewish Christian authors began to adopt theanti-Semitism of their pagan counterparts; 4) and after the hermeneutic foundin the New Testament was replaced by Greek allegorism.
The move to replace Israel as the recipient of theeschatological blessings of the Old Testament did not occur all at once. Onescholar, Jeffrey Siker, gives four stages in the development of this view:
1. First,Paul argues that the Gentiles, not only the Jews, are included (A.D. 30-60).
2. Second,other writers of the New Testament such as Matthew, Hebrews and Luke-Actspresent the Gentiles as included but begin a discussion of the exclusion of theJews (A.D. 60-90).
3. Instage three, John, Ignatius, and Barnabas assume Gentile inclusion, but argueagainst Jewish inclusion (A.D. 90-120).
4. Lastof all, several works, ending with Justin Martyr, do not believe Gentileinclusion to be an issue but do assume Jewish exclusion (A.D. 120-150).
Siker has provided a interesting paradigm to see a possibleprogression of the substitution of Gentiles for Jews, but as Ray Pritz pointsout, the New Testament records are not as negative toward Jewish inclusion asSiker has postulated.[7] The New Testament writers certainlymention the hardness of Israel to their Messiah (Acts 2:23; 3:17; 7:51-53) butthere is never total exclusion; there is a remnant within Israel found in theGospels and the epistles who follow after the Messiah Jesus (Acts 3:24-26;5:13, 14; Rom. 11:25-27).
Others, such as Walter Kaiser, have argued that replacementtheology probably had its origins in "an early political-ecclesiasticalalliance forged between Eusebius Pamphilius and the Emperor Constantine."
For Replacement Theology to be correct, one of two scenariosmust be true regarding the various covenants that we observe in the OldTestament between Yahweh and Israel: the covenants must be bilateralagreements so that Israel's failure has caused them to be no longer in force,or the covenants must be able to be spiritually interpreted so that the churchassumes the covenants in some non-literal sense. Are either of these twopositions truly reflective of the nature and intent of the covenants of the OldTestament? An examination of these biblical covenants will reveal the correctunderstanding.
The Historical Understanding of Israel's EschatologicalBlessings in Holy Scripture
The Blessings to Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures
The Seminal Covenants with Adam and Noah
The God of the Bible is a covenant making God. We find fromthe very initiation of Scripture that God seeks to establish a relationshipwith His people, committing Himself to blessings and promises, as well as judgmentfor disobedience of the covenant.
Though Genesis 1:26-28 does not specifically use the Hebrewword for covenant, components of covenant are found in this passage, especiallyas one parallels these components with the covenant text of Genesis 9. In Genesis1, God places man and woman in the garden with specific duties (v. 28) andblessings (vv. 29-30).
Genesis 9 is a covenant renewal, the covenant to be renewedapparently that originated with Adam and Eve in view of the parallels withGenesis 1 and 2. Again, no word for "cutting a covenant" is present but theword qm, "to establish" is used ofestablishing a covenant elsewhere (cf Gen. 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17; 17:7, 19, 21; Ex.6:4).
Two important points must be emphasized about these twocovenants. Neither appears to be bilateral. They simply come from a sovereignGod, maker and ruler of heaven and earth. Second, the covenants are with allof mankind, in stark contrast to the covenants with Abraham and hisdescendants.
The Central Covenant with Abraham
The future blessings to the people of Israel rest solidly onthe covenant that Yahweh makes with Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, and 17. Whetherthese covenants are unilateral (unconditional) or bilateral (conditional) ispivotal to whether the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac can trulyhave their blessings taken over by the church.
The future of Israel is tied to the Abrahamic covenant. Thecovenant with Abraham and his seed was not conditioned on their obedience butthe appropriation of any given generation was dependant on loyalty to Yahweh.For example, failure to obey the Sinaitic Covenant, which was strongly tied tothe Abrahamic Covenant (Ex. 19:5 and 6:4 with Gen. 15), could bring loss of theblessings for disobedient Israel but not a revocation of the unconditionalpromises to the people of Israel.[9]
The Derivative Promises in the Covenants with Israel
The land
Springing from the central covenant[10]Israel had with Yahweh were three consequent covenants: a land, a kingdom, andthe blessings to all nations. First, the people were promised a land: the landof the Canaanites, and from Egypt to the Euphrates (Gen. 15:18; cf. also theMosaic Covenant's land commitments in Deut. 11:24). Israel has never yetoccupied all the promised land and will only do so when she finally turns toGod in the future. Ellisen elucidates on the scope of the land of futureIsrael:
In their final return, Israel will be divided bytribes in parallel strips of land running east and west (Ezek. 48:1-8). Theboundaries will be the Mediterranean on the west, the Dead Sea . . . on theeast, Damascus on the north, and Kadesh or the River of Egypt on the south. Atthe center will be the prince's portion (v. 21). This will include the city ofJerusalem, the temple area, and the suburbs for the priests.[11]
This everlasting covenant was in force dependant onobedience by Israel. The covenant of the land was an everlasting covenant butany generation which refused to comply with the covenant code of Moses would becast out of the land (Deut. 29:25).[12]
The kingdom
Secondly, Yahweh promised that the throne of David wouldnever be empty (Ps. 89:3, 4). Though the kings of Israel faltered in theirobedience to God and although during the intertestamental period there were nokings on the throne, the promise is a guarantee that the line would not dieout; Messiah would sit on the throne forever (2 Sam. 7:14-16; Jer. 23:1-8). Jesus (Yesha) became the greater Son of David to assurance of the continuanceof David's royal line (Lk. 1:32, 33, 54, 55).[13]
The blessings to the Gentiles
The third prong of the Abrahamic Covenant is the blessingsto other nations and ultimately to whole world. This was fulfilled in thecoming of Jesus the Messiah as He extended His redemptive benefits beyondIsrael.[14] Paul speaks of the grafting of the Gentiles intothe natural branch (Rom. 11:16-24) but this should not be seen as a diminishingof the promises to Israel but the enhancement of the Gentile position.
Those who believe that the church has somehow taken over theblessings of Israel must explain the revoking of these apparently irrevocablecallings of God on His people. The future blessings to Israel are directlyconnected to the unconditional covenants with Israel, namely, the Abrahamic,the "Palestinian" or land, and the Davidic, which were developedearlier. The Mosaic covenant was not an unconditional covenant and would besuperceded by the New Covenant.
The Future of Israel according to the New Testament
In the Teachings of Jesus
Jesus came offering the kingdom to the people of Israel. Heis declared in His birth to be Savior of His people (Matt. 1:21) and king ofthe Jews in His death (Luke 23:38). He cried over the Jewish rejection of Hisoffer to them (Matt. 23:37-39), and in His parables He spoke of the kingdombeing taken from them and given to another (Matt. 21:43, 44). Prior to Hisascension, however, when the disciples asked regarding the offer of thekingdom, Jesus' response was not that Israel had no future but that thishappening was in the authority of the Father so that they were to concentrateon the task of the great commission given to them (Acts 1:6-8).
In the Teachings of the Apostles prior to A.D. 70
The inclusion of the Gentiles in the redemptive plan of Godis not viewed as a replacement of God's promises to the Jewish people in theproclamation of the apostles. Rather, for example, Peter anticipated therestoration of Israel (Acts 3:17-26) based on their acceptance of Jesus astheir Messiah (a prophecy still to be fulfilled from Zech. 12:10). Moreover,Paul envisioned the future salvation of Israel to come upon the completion ofGod's work among the Gentiles (Rom 11:25, 26).[15]
In the Teachings of the Apocalypse of John
The last book of Holy Scripture, the Apocalypse of John,provides the final glimpse of God's purposes for the Jewish people. This bookis replete with Jewish allusions from the Old Testament. The future sufferingsof the Jewish people are foretold as well as Israel's participation, along withthe church, in the final blessings of God's redemption during a millennial age.
The teaching of John in the Apocalypse was generallyunderstood consistent with Jewish thought during the first century, especiallybefore A.D. 70, and was the basis of the chiliasm found in the earliestChristian writings of the second century. Post-apostolic fathers who wereacquainted with the apostle John, or his own disciples, shared a similar viewof end-times events. This perspective, however, changed with the introductionof non-literal interpretation due to theincreasing dependence on allegorical thought introduced by non-Jewish writers.
The Old and New Testaments portray a future blessing for theJewish people which will have lasting results. There is no glossing over of[[is of needed?]] Israel's forsaking of God but are the promises to Abrahamthereby set aside regarding his seed, the inheritance of the land of Israel, orthe promises of an everlasting Davidic throne? These promises appear to betaken literally by the prophets, in the teachings of the New Testament writers,as well as the early Fathers of the church. Only with the destruction ofIsrael by the Romans, the subsequent anti-Christian rhetoric and actions ofmany Jews, and the rise of Greek philosophical interpretation of the biblicaltexts, does the church begin to view itself as the inheritor of Israel'spromises.
As we have seen, the God of the Bible made a commitment thatis irrevocable. The covenant included provisions of a land and kingdom to Hispeople Israel, as well as many blessings to all other nations through her. Thefact that Gentiles are benefited by the coming of Jesus (Gal. 3:15-18) in noway eliminates the remainder of His covenant to the children of Israel afterthe flesh. Such a view is in no way demanded by the New Testament text andthis would certainly be a violation of the plain reading of numerous OldTestament passages. God will fulfill all of His covenant, not just the partthat applies to the non-Jewish world.
The Historical Understanding of Israel's EschatologicalBlessings in the History of the Post-Apostolic Church until the Time ofConstantine
Jewish Christianity before and after A.D. 70
The church, as Paul so strongly argues in Romans 11, findsit roots in Israel. Moreover, it is the Jewish people that continued therevelation of God and to whom God made great promises and performed great worksas seen at the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, the large response of Jews toPeter's sermon, the miracles of the apostles, the deliverance of Peter fromprison (Rom. 3:1-4; 9:4, 5). Early Christians for approximately ten yearsafter the ascension of Christ consisted of entirely those Jewish converts. Onlyafter the preaching of Peter to the Jewish proselyte Cornelius in Joppa, wereGentiles made heirs to the redemption (Acts 10:44-48; 11:18). That Gentileswere able to participate in this gospel was not transparent since Peter had tomake a formal defense before the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (Acts 11). Even this Gentile convert, Cornelius, was one who sought to adhere to thepractices of the Jewish faith.[19] The first missionary journey ofPaul in the middle forties first offered the gospel of Christ to Gentiles inthe fullest sense and it was this non-Judaistic proclamation that brought thewrath of some from Jerusalem who sought to bring this new teaching of Paul to ahalt. It was this Jewish element in the church from Jerusalem thatprecipitated the letter to the Galatians, and subsequently the JerusalemCouncil. The Jerusalem Council became necessary to bring peace between thedifferent parties and to resolve the dispute as to whether Gentiles had tofollow Jewish practices and laws to become disciples of Jesus. Only minimalrequirements, ones whose violation would greatly offend Jewish believers, wereimposed on the Gentile converts (Acts 15).
At this initial stage of the church it is evident thatPeter, James, and John were the major figures within the Jewish church. Theworship and fellowship was simple (Acts 2:44; 4:32-37) and the Christiancommunity stayed in fellowship with Judaism. They visited the temple (Acts3:1) and participated in Jewish practices. Jewish Christians were recognizedby Jew and Roman alike as but another sect within Judaism (Acts 18:12-15).
Though the apostles clashed with the Jewish authorities,they continued their ministry and generally were well accepted by the people(Acts 2:47). Even when the Hellenistic Jew, Stephen, was killed by the Jewishleaders because of his brash and accusatory speech (Acts 6:8-7:60), thepersecution seems to be launched primarily against Greek speaking Jews sincethe leaders in Jerusalem, at this time, apparently were not disturbed (Acts8:1). When some of the early leaders were apprehended by Jewish authorities,Gamaliel the Elder, grandson of Hillel,[20] was a moderatinginfluence arguing that if their teaching was spurious, as many others had been,it would come to nothing, but if it was from God, they would find themselvesfighting against God (Acts 5:33-39).
Judaism was much more multifaceted than many have supposedand Christ's message was not entirely out of accord with the teaching of manyPharisees in his proclamations of moral theology. His rejection of certainteachings and practices of the Pharisees was consistent with the internalsquabbles among the Pharisees, and their concern about the corruption of theTemple. It was only His teaching on His Messiahship that confused the Jews,since the majority were looking for a political-military Messiah.
Only as the church spread beyond Judea into more Gentilecontrolled areas did the believers in Jesus receive a designation that becameprominent in Gentile lands, that of Christians (Acts 11:19ff). As we shall seebelow, followers of Yehsua had many names, the most prominent being Nazarenes
Though Peter was the natural choice for leader in thebeginnings of the church, eventually the family of Jesus began to play a moreimportant role[22] with James, the Lord's half-brotherbecoming the leader of the Jerusalem congregation. Judea was without aprocurator for a brief time after the departure of Festus. At this time (A.D.62) James was called to the Sanhedrin on the orders of the high priest Annas IIand stoned to death for having broken the law. This execution was greatlyopposed by more moderate Jews and the Pharisees, who then brought chargesagainst Annas II to King Agrippa II and the newly arrived procurator Albinus. Annas was then deposed as high priest by Agrippa II.[23]
The Drifting of Jewish Christianity and Judaism afterA.D. 70
The Rise of Judaism in Yavneh
The destruction of Jerusalem, its temple, and the halting oftemple sacrifices caused major changes in Judaism. During this period Judaismmoved toward a bloodless religion of ceremonies and ethics. The liturgy ofJewish worship[24] was finalized. All other competingsystems-the Sadducees, Herodians, Zealots, the Essenes-largely ceased to exist.The Pharisaic center at Yavneh served as the alternative to the temple cult ofJerusalem. Also, the synagogue, in order to save Judaism from extinction,sought to eradicate any competing systems within it, thus pushing JewishChristians outside its walls. It was made plain that Christianity was not anaccepted sect of Judaism, as it was in its initiation.
The person who had the most impact on the new beginnings forJudaism was Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, who, according to one tradition escapedfrom the Zealot held city of Jerusalem in a coffin before its fall.
Different Sects of Jewish Christianity
Jewish Christianity was not restricted to Christians inPalestine. The Therapeutae of Egypt, described by Philo, supposedly wereconverts of Mark. They are acknowledged by Epiphanius, who lived for some timeamong Egyptian monks, and the historian Sozomen called them "convertedJews, who continue to live after the Jewish fashion."[29]
Another Jewish Christian group, who was clearly orthodox intheology but Jewish in many practices, was the Nazarenes. Supposedly theChurch of Mesopotamia was founded by this community. The first mention we haveof them is the mention by Paul's opponent in Acts 24:5. Pritz says that the"name of the sect came from the title NAZORAIOS/NAZARENOS, evidentlyapplied to Jesus from the beginning of his public ministry."
Anti-Christian Sentiment in Post-A.D. 70 Pharisaism
One of the major reasons usually given for stronganti-Christian attitudes among the later Jewish population is that JewishChristians fled Jerusalem in A.D. 66, shortly before the Romans laid siege tothe city of Jerusalem. They are thought to have crossed the Jordan and went tothe rocky mountains called Petra (Pella).[33] This abandonment ofthe Jewish plight in Jerusalem caused many to believe that the JewishChristians were disloyal to Israel.[34]
Another reason for the hostility is much more pragmatic andpersonal, namely, the desire to maintain a hegemony over the religious life ofthe people. There was a danger, according to C.K. Barrett, that "Judaism wouldsimply assimilate itself to other religions."[35] Whereas Judaism hadbeen a cacophony of ideologies, rabbis at Yavneh sought to ensure that Judaismshould sing one religious song. This was especially true with JewishChristianity for it was not even viewed as being a Jewish sect.
The former Benediction Concerning Heretics was revised toinclude Christians. Paul Johnson comments:
The collapse of the Jewish-Christian church after 70AD and the triumph of Hellenistic Christianity led the Jews, in turn, tocastigate the Christians. Jewish daily prayers against heretics and opponentsdate from the Hellenistic reform programme of the second century BC . . . . Theprayer against heretics, originally known as 'the Benediction to Him whohumbles the arrogant', became part of the daily service, or Amidah, as theTwelfth Benediction. At one time it was specifically directed against theSadducees. Under the rule of Raban Gamaliel II (c. 80-115 AD), the TwelfthBenediction or Birkat ha-Minim('Benediction concerning heretics') was recast to apply to Christians and thisseems to have been the point at which the remaining Jewish followers of Christwere turned out of the synagogue. By the 132 rising Christians and Jews wereseen as open opponents or even enemies. Indeed Christian communities inPalestine petitioned the Roman authorities to be given separate religiousstatus to Jews, and the Christian writer Justin Martyr (c. 100-C. 165), wholived in Neapolis (Nablus), reported that the followers of Simon bar Kokhbamassacred Christian as well as Greek communities. It is from this period thatanti-Christian polemic begins to appear in Jewish Bible commentaries.
The collapse mentioned by Johnson really only occurred afterthe Bar-Kokhba defeat in A.D. 135 and the subsequent limitation on Jewsentering the city of Jerusalem (Jewish Christians were still found throughoutIsrael though). At this time Gentile Christians were left in Jerusalem todevelop a church absent for the first time from the Jews who gave life andgrowth to that church and provided its unbroken leadership. Johnson iscorrect that there was opposition against Christians at synagogue meetings butas seen below these were largely addressed against the still vibrant JewishChristian element within Israel.
There has been debate as to whether this curse on the"minim" refers to Jewish Christians, to Gentile Christians, both orneither.[37] Certainly the term"heretics" may have been used earlier for other groups or sects butat this time probably came to include, though maybe not exclusively, Christiansin general. Jocz believes it to be a reference to both Christian and Jew atdifferent times: "The Minim were thus Christians, first JewishChristians, then also Gentile Christians; later, when Christianity removeditself from the Jewish horizon, the appellation was given to any Jews ofdissenting views."[38]
We have seen that in the aftermath of A.D. 70, alternativeparties and rival ideologies to the Pharisees, namely, the Sadduccees,Herodians, Zealots, and Essenes, largely fell into oblivion. Only the vibrantJewish-Christian movement posed a threat to the type of Judaism desired bythose at Yavneh. In order to solidify their hold through the teaching anddiscipline of the synagogue, an attempt was made to remove Jewish-Christiansfrom the religious life of the Jewish community. This only caused a largerrift between Jewish Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, one which grow largerwith the influx of Gentiles into the formerly pervasive Jewish Christianmovement, eventuating in the development of replacement theology in the secondcentury A.D.
Reasons for the Development of Replacement Theology inEarly Christianity
Confusion between Orthodox Jewish Christianity andHeretical Jewish Groups
Candidly, as the church's membership became more and moreGentile, and the influence of the Jewish community became less pronounced, thechurch's knowledge of Jewish Christianity became minuscule. Only a few of thetheologians of the church seem to have serious contact with the JewishChristian community. Origen and Eusebius preferred to call these Christians,the Nazarenes, by the term "believing Jews" and to use particularnames for those they considered heretical such as the Ebionites and Elkesaites.Bagatti says, "Since the Nazarenes did not differ much in faith from thegentile Christians, they were considered without more ado as faithful, albeitseparated through national customs; all the other Judaeo-Christians wereconsidered heretics."[39]
Epiphanius, who often appears hostile to JewishChristianity, confuses Nazarenes and Ebionites. He seeks to distinguishNazarenes who he believed lived in Pella, having left Jerusalem before theRoman siege, with other Jewish Christian groups. The Nazarenes according toEpiphanius, "have nothing to do with Christ; they observe the Sabbath butthey have no animal sacrifices, nor do they accept the Patriarchs of the OldTestament."[40] Origen, also, seems to make thismistake:
Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some whoaccept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being Christians, and yet wouldregulate their lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the JewishLaw,-and these are the twofold sect of the Ebionites, who either acknowledgewith us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that he wasbegotten like other human beings . . . .[41]
Pritz rightly concludes, "If the more orthodox JewishChristians (who can only be faulted for keeping the Law) are Nazarenes, then wehave an early misuse of the name Ebionite to include all Jewish ChristianLaw-keepers."[42]
Rise of Anti-Semitism in the Early Church
Perceived Anti-Semitism in the New Testament
One reading the New Testament does not need to read far tosee statements of condemnation of Jewish leadership, and eventually the generalpopulace for rejecting the offer of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel (Matt.23:37-39; 27:20, 25). Especially, the gospel writers do not portray thePharisees in favorable light (Matt. 23:27; Lk. 11:44), though largely they werenot finally much involved in the condemnation of Jesus (Matt. 27:22-27).
The gospel of the apostle John, more than any other gospel,is viewed as expressing hostility toward the Jews. Kaufmann Kohler, awell-known Reform Jewish scholar, called John's Gospel "a Gospel of Christianlove and Jew hatred."[44] That Kohler's assessment isincorrect is established in at least three ways. First, there are manypassages in the Gospel of John that are equally philo-semitic, to coin a term(John 4:22; 11:45-48). John has no animosity against Jewish people in general,it is clear. Second, the writer John, Jesus and the disciples, after all, wereJews. As Feldman says,
how could the New Testament condemn Jews as a group,when it clearly acknowledges Jesus as a Jew and also his predecessor John theBaptist, his 12 apostles and most if not all of his immediate followers? Evenwhen Jesus prophesies the destruction, he refers to it as 'my Father's house'(John 2:16). For Christianity, the daughter of Judaism, to be anti-Semiticwould be a clear case of matricide.[45]
Last of all, the Jewish nature of the book and that Johnhimself was a Jew has caused scholars difficulty in determining what he meantby the term "the Jews" which occur sixteen times in his gospel.[46] Theterm must refer to Jewish people in a non-anti-Semitic manner, as Rabbi LouisFeldman has so poignantly demonstrated. The evidence seems to lean toward theterm being used against "a group of Jewishleaders who exercise greatauthority among their compatriots and are especially hostile to Jesus and hisdisciples."[47]
Luke, in Acts particularly, has been viewed as anti-Jewishsince he placed little judgment on Rome but instead saw the Jewish leadershipas being the major persecutor of the Way. Surely, this may have been in part,to present a good front to Roman authorities, but it nevertheless trulyreflects the type of opposition that the sect of the Nazarenes as well asChristians in missionary locales of Paul encountered from Jewish leadership. Heas well, however, softened the impact of his statements against the Jews (Luke23:27-31, 48; 23:34; Acts 3:17), and distinguished between the Jewish people(Luke 19:47, 48) and the Jewish leadership. He is by no means uniformlyagainst the Jewish people as a whole in the speeches he includes in the Acts(Acts 7:52, 60; 28:24,25; cf. Acts 2:36; 4:10; 10:39 with 13:43 and 18:6 with21:20).[48]
Even Paul, the apostle, viewed by many as the beginner of anew religion and a radical rabbi who left the teachings of Jesus
Misunderstanding of "in-house" discussion
If the writings of the New Testament are not reallyaddressed against the entire Jewish people and only against certain rulers ofthe Jews who were hostile to Christ, the apostles and early Christianity, thenhow did the fathers of the church so wrongly understand the situation in theNew Testament? It is this writer's view that they eventually forgot thecontext of these writings and saw the teaching of the texts of the NewTestament to be opposition to Jews in general, rather than, for what it was, anin-house debate. Consequently, the greatest difficulty in properlyunderstanding the supposed negative attitude of the New Testament writings tothe Jewish community is that we are listening to a family squabble.
As we have already seen in the biblical passages, the gospelwriters often cast the Jewish community in disparaging ways, either seeing themas an obstacle to genuine ethics (the Pharisees, Matt. 5:20; 23:26; Luke 7:39),perverters of true religion (the chief priests, Matt. 27:21, 41-43; Mark 15:10-13),connivers with those opposing Jesus (scribes and lawyers, Luke 10:25; 11:46;20:19) and rejecters of the Word of God (Sadducees, Mark 12:24). The synopticgospels give adequate testimony to these tendencies but probably none is soharsh as John's gospel where he repeatedly uses negatively the term "theJews" and the Acts where the Jews are depicted as constantly in oppositionto the Gospel. It may be that the reference to the "synagogue ofSatan" and those "who say they are Jews but are not" in Revelation2:9 is a participation in this controversy.[51]
The in-house discussion among the Jews, however, caused someat the end of the nineteenth century to disassociate Jesus from His Jewishness.H. St. Chamberlain, for example, contended that Jesus was not a Jew, that Hehad been born in Galilee where there was not a pure race of Jews, that in factHe was Aryan, and that He then was eventually killed by the Jews. In the past,even when His Jewishness was recognized, His humanity has often been sodownplayed that He has been severed by His Jewishness.[52]
Even the ancient church shared this misconception. Many ofthe church fathers believed that the New Testament authors, and the earlychurch, were anti-Jewish. Such a view should be seen as preposterous in viewof the fact that all of the authors (except Luke) were Jews and that our Lordwas a Jew. Rather than the theology of these biblical writers beinganti-Jewish, they were expressions of an in-house dispute which the writers andtheir hearers knew well. Such actions were very consistent with other suchdisputes in Judaism at the time and even in other cultures of the time.
One discovers very strong language against fellow Jews inmuch of the literature that is found among the Jews of the time,
This phenomenon, as mentioned above, was not restricted toJudaism. In the Hellenistic world there are many examples of in-housefighting. For example, Dio of Prusa called the sophists "ignorantones," "liars," and "flatterers" and Colotes, anEpicurean called some philosophers "prostitutes."[58]
Moskowitz understands the dispute not that the JewishChristians sought to replace the nationality of the Jewish people with a faithcommunity but the replacement of the moral leadership of the nation with afaith community. "The remnant of Israel understood that even Gentileswere to be allowed into this new faith community, but that God was still goingto use national Israel to accomplish His ultimate plan of redemption (Romans11:11-12, 28-36)."[59] He then ruminates that it is
both ironic and sad to face that the JewishChristians' understanding of their replacing the present leadership of Israelmay have been one of the causes of the Gentile church adopting this doctrinewhich led her so far from favoring her twin sister Israel. This misunderstandingof the church's relationship to unbelieving Israel has led some of the greatmen of the church to postulate theories that have led to so much persecution ofIsrael.[60]
There are a number of instances in the second through fourthcentury for the belief that the church supersedes Israel, receiving theblessings intended for the nation upon God's rejection and judgment of her. Wewill examine these presently. However, are there examples of this developmentin the earlier periods of the church's history? One may discover thisReplacement Theology developing in two early books, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. The former book represents early second century thought and theDidache represents how many Christians thought around the turn of the firstcentury or early second century A.D.[61]
The Didache purportsto represent the teachings of the twelve apostles (thus didache, meaning teaching). The book was apparently writtenfor Gentiles but it has strong Jewish flavor. The book has several clearJewish elements:[62]
1. The book startswith "the way of life" and then gives the Golden Rule in negativeform, similar to how Hillel taught the rule.
2. The bookemphasizes the Ten Commandments and then follows these commands with moralinstruction:
In Jewish literature, we not only have Halachah, butthere is also a good deal of general moral instruction, exhortation toself-discipline, modesty, gentleness, patience, respect for old age,forgiveness, and family harmony. The Didache is very similar to three Rabbinic books of the same or later period: Derech Eretz Rabbah-what's good and bad, the way of life and death, lists of properconduct; De Zuta-a long treatiseon modesty with the last chapter on eschatology; Perek haShalom-we have the fear of sin, exhortation to modesty,perseverance, and the final eschatological chapter.[63]
3. The section onmoral instruction ends with "If you can bear the whole yoke of the Lord,you'll be perfect" (6:2). This is similar to the saying of the rabbisabout the "yoke of Torah."
4. The statementsin the Didache about pouring of waterover the head in baptism is very similar to Pharisaic regulations for a mikveh.
5. In the sectionon fasting one may observe an interesting anti-rabbinic attitude: "Youshall not fast on Monday and Thursday as the hypocrites do, but on Wednesdayand Friday." (8:1). Monday and Thursday were fast days in the teaching ofthe rabbis (Mishnah Taanith 2:9). Thisdifference indicates a definite attempt to distinguish the believers fromrabbinic Judaism based on growing hostility between them.
Other features that reveal a Jewishinfluence is mentioned by Bagatti as being in the Didache
written when the descendants of David were at the headof the community, when it alludes to David on two occasions: 'through the holylife of David thy servant' (IX, 2) and in saying: 'to the Son of David', or tothe 'house of David' (X, 6).[64]
No early Christian document speaks so loudly and clearly ofa supercessionist perspective than does the Epistle of Barnabas. Though portions of Clement and Ignatius haveisolated comments, Barnabas easily exceeds them in teaching replacement. Theauthor of Barnabas wrote his epistle probably somewhere between A.D. 117-138, atime of Jewish persecution of the church. This most likely explains the toneof this Christian letter. According to Kleist beginning with Hadrian's reignin A.D. 117 Rome had a more lenient policy toward the Jewish people. This inturn caused many zealous Jews to aspire for independence leading to the BarKochba revolt. During the interval the aspirations led to heightened interestof Jewish Christians in Jewish religion and rituals. The author seeks todiscourage the Jewish believers from defection.[65] This letter has many similarities in tone and intent with the canonical book ofHebrews (cf. Hebrews 10:1 with Barnabas 7:6), and there are also similarities with the Didache.
In one place Barnabas says ". . . do not imitate certainpeople by heaping sin after sin upon yourselves and saying: 'their covenant isours also.' Ours indeed: but in the end they lost it."[66] Hespeaks elsewhere of the Israel's loss of the covenant because of their sins: "Yes indeed! But let us see whether the covenant which He had sworn to thefathers to give their people was actually given. He has given it; but they,owing to their sins, proved unworthy of the favor."[67] Such teaching does not indicate anti-Semitism on the author's part but doesserve as additional foundation to a later setting aside of Israel in favor ofthe church.
Anti-Semitism in the Second and Third Centuries
The predominantly Gentile church became increasinglyanti-Semitic after the middle of the second century. One often observes harshstatements about the Jews. For example the non-Jew Commodianus harshly states:
There is not an unbelieving people such as yours. Oevil men! in so many places, and so often rebuked by the law of those who cryaloud. And the lofty One despises your Sabbaths, and altogether rejects youruniversal feasts according to the law, that ye should not make to Him thecommanded sacrifices; who [[check to see if capital w]] told you to throw astone for your offense. . . . ye with indurated heart insult Him [God].
Impact of Pagan Anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is not difficult to find in the world surroundingIsrael. To the Greeks who themselves had an extraordinarily high view of theirculture and religions, the Jews appeared quaint if not anti-social. While theentire Mediterranean world was being Hellenized, the Jewish people to varyingdegrees were resistant to this assimilation. This is especially true inIsrael, largely due to the rise of the bludgeoning policies of the Seleucidsand Maccabees. It looked as if the Jewish people would be assimilated slowlybut the events leading to the Maccabean era largely reversed this trend andthe religious and nationalistic spirit of Israel led to temporary freedom andongoing struggles with rulers stronger than itself. Johnson comments that"As Greek ideas on the oneness of humanity spread, the Jewish tendency totreat non-Jews as ritually unclean and forbid marriage to them was resented asbeing anti-humanitarian. . . ."[69] Moreover, the civilized world of the Greeksbecame an irresistible force that developed a multi-racial and multi-nationalsociety. Any people who opposed these changes were viewed as enemies of man.
The church becomes primarily Gentile.[72] Therevolt of Bar-Kokhba has indirect negative results to Jewish Christianity inJudah because Hadrian forbade Jews to come within sight of Jerusalem.
Apparently, according to Bagatti, Jewish Christians returnedto Jerusalem whereas those who were non-Christian Jews were forbidden. Bagattiexplains, "This is explained by the fact that with the war a distinctionwas made between the Jews and the Judaeo-Christians, and that the decree ofexpulsion, promulgated by Hadrian, concerned only the Jews."
With the end of the Second Jewish War against Rome, Jewishinfluence and importance became marginalized. It had become so irrelevant tothe majority of the church that by the fourth century, at the council at Nicea,eighteen members had come from Palestine. Every one was Gentile and not asingle Jewish bishop attended. The council knew nothing of theJewish-Christian community and took free hand in subjects like the dating ofEaster without any opposition. Bagatti notes:
Once the way was open, future councils followed thesame track, ever widening the division among Christians. The point of view ofthe Judaeo-Christians, attached to their own tradition and devoid of Greekphilosophical formation, was to remain firm on the Testimonia and therefore would not admit any extraneous word, homoousios included. The point of view of the Greek Fathersaccustomed to the deductions of philosophical reasoning, and unburdened bytraditionalistic Jewish baggage, was this, that the Holy Spirit had inspiredthis word, even though it were not biblical, because it corresponded to theChristian truth of the nature of God; he was therefore a heretic who did notaccept it.[78]
Another possibility for the lack of Jewish names on theroster of bishops at Nicea is that though they were known they were omitted dueto anti-Semitic bias. We cannot know for sure the real reason.
Mutual exclusivity of Christianity and Jewish Practices
There were numerous practices of the Jews which variouscouncils and fathers forbade, which would necessarily burden Jewish Christianswho confessed the orthodox perspectives of Christ but followed their Jewishheritage.
The general sentiment expressed by many fathers and bishopsof the church may be illustrated in the words of Ignatius, at the beginning ofthe second century: "If any one celebrates the passover along with the Jews,or receives the emblems of their feast, he is a partaker with those that killedthe Lord and His apostles."[79]
This condemnation was not universal. Origen toward the endof the second century seeks to provide relief to Jewish followers of Jesus.bolstering his perspective with examples from Peter and Paul in the NewTestament.[80]
Stereotype of Jews as Christ killers. Several fathers speak harshly of the Jews askillers of Christ without differentiating between the rulership who wereinvolved in the conspiracy against Jesus and Jews as a group. They simply setaside that Jesus, the disciples, and most of the early Christians were Jewish. This anti-Semitism is not equivalent to replacement theology but it certainlymakes the abducting of Israel's blessing much easier to perform.
An early father, Ignatius, in his letter to the Magnesians,speaks of Jesus' enduring of the cross "at the hands of the Christ-killingJews."[81]
The judgment against Israel was seen as God's judgment dueto its grave sin against Jesus, as stated by Origen (c. 185-254) "Andthese calamities they [the Jews] have suffered, because they were a most wickednation, which, although guilty of many other sins, yet has been punished soseverely for none, as for those that were committed against our Jesus."
For example, Melito (died c. 190) bishop of Sardis, said inhis Homily on the Passion,
He who hung the earth is hanging;
he who fixed the heavens has been fixed;
he who fastened the universe has been
fastened to a tree;
the Sovereign has been insulted;
the God has been murdered;
the King of Israel has been put to death by
an Israelite right hand.
The anti-Semitism of the early church based on themisunderstanding of an in-house debate, suspicion of Jewish theology andpractices, the accusations of Jews as Christ-killers, and the reinforcement ofanti-Semitism in the pagan community was reinforced by how the apologists andother Christians viewed the treatment of Jewish Christians by the synagogalcommunity, the slaughter of Christians by Bar-Kokhba, and Jewish complicity inthe martydom of Christians.
Reaction to anti-Christian sentiments
Cleansing the synagogues.The fathers of the church viewed the Benediction against the minim as Jewish hostility to the faith of Christianity. As mentioned, earlier, there is debate as to whether the benediction was specificallyaddressed against Christians since even before Christianity a similarbenediction had already been in use in the Jewish synagogues.[84] That the Jews were apt to exclude other groups besides Jewish Christians is notin doubt, however, but whether within those excluded were the Jewish Christiansbecomes the concern for this study.[85] In regards to these Jewish minim they were to be more avoided than pagans and were tobe hated. Note the benediction, "For the apostates let there be no hope, andmay the reign of pride be quickly uprooted in our day; and may the Nazarenesand the Minim perish in aninstant, and may they be cancelled from the book of the living, and may theirname never appear amid the just."[86]
Not only did Pharisaic Jews seek to rid themselves of JewishChristians by expulsion from the synagogue. They also sought to differentiatethemselves from believers in Christ by introducing a double manner of wearingthe phylacteries. This backfired on them, though, because the JewishChristians-who were minim-adopted thecustom with a different meaning seeing the sign of the cross, changing this Jewishpractice to a Christological significance.[87]
The Jewish believers in Jesus caused the unbelieving Jews tomake other changes because of investing practices with Christological meaning. Bagatti illustrates this:
One was not to use in salutation the word 'Adonai,'because the Minim referred it to Christ.A second change was that of terminating prayer with the name of God.' In the Mishna (Berak,9, 5). . . we read: 'At the close of every Benediction in the Temple they usedto say, 'For everlasting'; but after the heretics had taught corruptly andsaid that there is but one world (eternity) it was ordained that one shouldsalute his fellow [with the use of] the Name [of God]'.[88]
Even the change to the Greek election of Aquila's translationof the Hebrew Scriptures in preference to the Septuagint was largely due to theappropriation of the latter by Christians. The opposition to the JewishChristians by the post-A.D. 70 Pharisaic Jews is understandable. To these JewsJesus was an imposter[89] while to the Jewish Christians(specifically the Nazarenes) He was the promised Messiah, even Deity. On theother hand, Gentile Christians would see this rejection and cursing of Jewishbrothers, and even themselves, as hatred of Christianity and Jesus Christ.
Persecution of Jewish Christians by Bar-Kokhba. Justin, for whom Bar-Kokhba was recent history,mentions in his First Apology that during the revolt this extremist severelypunished Christians if they did not blaspheme Yeshua:
They are also in the possession of all Jews throughoutthe world; but they, though they read, do not understand what is said, butcount us foes and enemies; and, like yourselves, they kill and punish uswhenever they have the power, as you can well believe. For in the Jewish warwhich lately raged, Barchochebas, the leader of the revolt of the Jews, gaveorders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments, unless theywould deny Jesus Christ and utter blasphemy.[91]
Jewish collaboration in the persecution of Christians. Segments of the Jewish populace were against Christand His followers from the beginning of the Christian era, whereas others wereaccepting, or at least moderate in their response. There is some evidence ofearlier hostility between Jews and followers of Christ under Claudius. Suetonius says that there was a disturbance among the Jews led by one Chrestus,probably a misunderstanding on his part regarding the followers of Christ.
After A.D. 70, and especially after A.D. 135, the Jewishreligion increasingly became the enemy of the Gospel of Christ and thefollowers of Christ. The Roman empire began to persecute Christians in thesedays and it appears that some non-Christian Jews were willing participants withRome.
A famous example of this complicity with Rome is themartyrdom of Polycarp: "These things then happened with so great speed,quicker than it takes to tell, and the crowd came together immediately, andprepared wood and faggots from the work-shops and baths and the Jews wereextremely zealous, as is their custom, in assisting at this."
Several other statements made in the Martyrdom implicate certain Jews in rousing the animosity ofthe crowds,[95] protestation to the authorities todeny the Christians permission to bury Polycarp's body,[96] and causing the body ofPolycarp to be burned.[97]
Another letter written about the same time is the anonymousletter to Diognetus. The author speaks of the difficulty of second centuryChristians and attaches to that persecution activities from the Jews: "They are warred upon by the Jews as foreigners and are persecuted by theGreeks, and those who hate them cannot state the cause of their enmity."
Hermeneutical Factors Affecting this Change
How the church interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures and how itsaw itself in the prophetic passages of the Old Testament had a great impact onthe appropriation of the blessings of the Jewish people. The struggle betweenthe enormous impact of Greek philosophical thought and the church'sinterpretation of the Old Testament Scriptures caused the church to see itselfas the new Israel, replacing the one they visibly saw destroyed in the biblicalland in A.D. 70 and 135.
The church's use of the Jewish Scriptures
The church not only appropriated the special status of theJewish people; it took over their Bible, the Septuagint (LXX). GentileChristians, who generally could not read Hebrew, appropriated the Greek OldTestament, the Septuagint, for themselves. This translation had been done forthe Hellenistic Jewish Diaspora between the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. Justinspeaks of the church's use of the Septuagint.[99] Not only theparticular translation was at issue but whether the church had a legitimateright to the Bible used by the Jews at all:
But if any of those who are wont to be forward incontradiction should say that these books do not belong to us, but to the Jews,and should assert that we in vain profess to have learnt our religion fromthem, let him know, as he may from those very things which are written in thesebooks, that not to them, but to us, does the doctrine of them refer. That thebooks relating to our religion are to this day preserved among the Jews, hasbeen a work of Divine Providence on our behalf; for lest, by producing them outof the Church, we should give occasion to those who wish to slander us tocharge us with fraud, we demand that they be produced from the synagogue of theJews, that from the very books still preserved among them it might clearly andevidently appear, that the laws which were written by holy men, for instructionpertains to us.[100]
It was not only the adoption of the Septuagint by the churchbut the way the church interpreted various statements from the Septuagint andreferred them to Jesus as Messiah that caused consternation from many Jews andtheir eventual rejection of the Septuagint. Barrett says that the disapprovalof the Septuagint may seen in the type of debate that occurred between Justinand Trypho. When the LXX translates hml[as parqevno" in Isaiah 7:14,for example, this proves to be problematic for the Jewish interpreter. "Justin(Trypho 39) maintains that the Jews hatethe Christians on account of their interpretation of scripture: oujde;n qaumasto;n eij kai; hJma'" misei'tetou;" tau'ta noou;nta" kai; ejlevgconta" uJmw'n th;n ajei;sklhrokardivan gnwvmhn."[101]
Rise of Greek philosophical interpretation
Though the church was greatly benefited by a common andreadable translation of the Hebrew text, and though it had good basis to arguefrom the Septuagint concerning the identity of Jesus as the Messiah prophesiedin the Old Testament, it made a fateful move in adopting the Greek philosophicalinterpretation being popularized in the Alexandria's neo-classical resurgence.By the end of the first century the allegorical method had gained considerablesway in the church. The more literal interpretation of the New Testamentauthors and post-apostolic fathers gave way to the influence of Greekphilosophical interpretation found in Philo and later in Hermes and Justin Martyr. By the time of the brilliantAlexandrian theologian Origen, allegory was readily used to move beyond theliteral sense of the text. In a criticism of Jewish interpretation that wasliteral, he says:
Many, not understanding the Scriptures in a spiritualsense, but incorrectly, have fallen into heresies. . . . it seems necessary toexplain this point . . . how certain persons, not reading them correctly, havegiven themselves over to erroneous opinions, inasmuch as the procedure to befollowed, in order to attain an understanding of the holy writings, is unknownto many. The Jews, in fine, owing to the hardness of their heart, and from adesire to appear wise in their own eyes, have not believed in our Lord andSavior, judging that those statements which were uttered respecting Him oughtto be understood literally. . . .[102]
Another example is fourth century historian Eusebius,
An example of the allegorical method may be seen inhow Eusebius explained away the millennial texts of the Scripture. In speakingof Isaiah 11:6-7 on the peace among animals during the future utopia "He usedthe peace among animals to prove not the millenarianist [sic] thesis but thatof the coming of Christ in the present church. Eusebius speaks of it twice . .. and St. Cyril . . . repeats: 'After the coming of this divine spirit intothe ark of the church, the wolves, in the field of the spirits, feed beside thelambs, and the calf and the bull with the lion, as history shows us today, whenthe kings and princes of the earth allow themselves to be led and instructed bythe bishops and by the priests of the church."[103]
From the early third century, then, with few exceptions,until the reformation the allegorical method held sway. The reformers removedthis grotesque dealing with the text in most of the scriptures except formatters of eschatology and the identification of the promises to Israel withthe church.
The theologians of the church seeing the church as thegenuine continuation of the Old Testament faith
Church Fathers saw Christians as the proper inheritors ofthe Old Testament faith and saw proof for this in the teachings of Christ whenhe said "Therefore, I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away fromyou and given to a nation producing the fruits of it" (Mt 21:43). For example, Origen in his debate againstCelsus says, ". . . we have to say to him, that our Lord, seeing the conduct ofthe Jews not to be at all in keeping with the teaching of the prophets,inculcated by a parable that the kingdom of God would be taken from them, andgiven to the converts from heathenism."[104] So much did thechurch view itself as the true "Israel" that Justin Martyr (c.100-165) said, "They [the Jewish Scriptures] are not yours but ours."
Not only was the church the proper deposit for the JewishScriptures and the gifts of God but also for the covenants in the view of theEpistle of Barnabas (end of 1st and beginning of 2nd century, "Take heedto yourselves now, and be not made like unto some, heaping up your sins andsaying that the covenant is both theirs [the Jews'] and ours [the Christians'].It is ours."[107] The church also inherited the blessings ofIsrael according to Barnabas.[108] Even the attempt on the part ofJewish Christians to continue Jewish practices was totally unacceptable,according to Ignatius (c. 36-108), "It is monstrous to talk of JesusChrist and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not base its faith onJudaism, but Judaism on Christianity."[109]
This view of the church being the true continuation of theOld Testament promises becomes a major theme in the apologetics and polemics ofthe second and third century. Certainly Ignatius overstates the case to saythat Judaism is built on Christianity. That both Christianity and Judaismshare a common root, however, is not only true to Paul in Romans 11 butconforms to the reality of the dynamics of the first century. Jhan Moskowitzspeaks of these two faiths as "twin sisters":
It has been generally understood that Christianity isthe daughter of Judaism. This is a poor understanding of the realities of thattime. Both Christianity and normative, pharisaic Judaism are twin sisters. . .. Both look back to the Old Testament and claim themselves to be rightfulheirs of her promises and authority.
It is in the conflicting claims of that birthrightthat we can see the emerging hostility of both camps. In the beginning, at acrucial time when her theology and ecclesiology was [[were? ck quote]] forming,the church did not have the power of the state to enforce her claims, and thesynagogue could not afford to allow any heir to the faith other than themselvesfor fear of losing the inheritance altogether. Forged in the theology of theMartyr the church saw itself as the true daughter of the faith. Along with thegrowing number of Gentiles that now were entering the church, she no longersaw herself connected to an ancient national identity, but saw the unbelievingIsrael as unworthy of the promise of God in her rejection of the Messiah.
Christianity and Judaism initially, then, shared the sameScriptures, the same prophetic hope, and the same faith. The destruction ofJerusalem and the Jewish temple caused some Jews to develop along differentlines than did that of the Jewish Christian community, the latter assuming theentrance of the blessings of Abraham through Jesus the Savior beyond the nationand the Jewish community. Christianity opened its arms to the world (Matt28:18-20; Acts 1:8) while Judaism moved inwardly.
Perspectives on Jewish theology
Jewish millennialism
Several of the fathers who were generations removed from theapostles developed a firm hostility to teachings of the Jews on mattersrelating to the millennium and the restoration of Israel. This teaching gaveway to a spiritualizing of the literal promises to Israel and the rejection ofa future reign of the Jews, including the presence of the temple. Many ofthese fathers believed that the judgment on the Jews for rejecting-evenkilling-the Lord Jesus was permanent. This was compounded by theanti-Christian feelings of early second century Pharisaic Judaism. The ideathat this obviously rejected people would once again enjoy God's blessings andthe rebuilding of their temple seemed preposterous. Yet the promises ofrestoration in the Old Testament and the teachings of the Apocalypse had to beexplained.
John's teaching had great influence on the Jewish communityof Asia Minor as well as the post-apostolic fathers. Both of these groupstended toward literal interpretation of the future restoration of Israel andthe millennium. Bagatti says,
Well known is the movement of Asia Minor with Ephesusas centre, where St. John had lived, and where he left a very personal imprint.His tomb . . . was a lighthouse, down the centuries, where devout people hadmanifested, with many graffiti, their attachment to the influence they hadundergone. The movement depends in great part on the Judaeo-Christian ideasregarding millenarianism, the cult of angels, the celebration of Easter on the14th of Nisan, the use of Johannine phraseology, the continuation ofarchitectonic motifs originating in Palestine etc. Yet if the imprint of these churches was near tto[sic] the Judaeo-Christian current, it did not identify itself with it, becausethe churches were composed in great part of gentile Christians and they did notadopt circumcision. The heterodox Judaeo-Christians currents were alwaystreated as heretical and combated without let."[111]
Justin Martyr strongly supported a literal understanding ofa millennial reign in answering Trypho on inconsistency between himself andthose who claimed to be Christians but denied Christian doctrines:
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians onall points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and athousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned and enlarged,[as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. . . whose name wasJohn, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that wasmade to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand yearsin Jerusalem. . . .[112]
Some even, due to their rejection of millennialism,attempted to disavow the Apocalypse as being from John the Apostle. Forexample, Bishop Dionysius attributed the Apocalypse to "the priest John, andnot to the Apostle, especially because 'many brethren were enthusiastic aboutit', and more so, because they founded on it their extravagant doctrines."
Epiphanius (in 375--77) sought to disavow this JewishChristian community since he held them to be heretics[115]and Gregory of Nyssa rejected the Christians of Zion after he was not acceptedby some Christians in the city who held to "three resurrections, themillenarianism, the restoration of the Temple with bloody sacrifices,"doctrines of Jewish Christians.[116] Similarly Jerome rarely passed upthe opportunity to ridicule millenarianism and the idea of the reconstructionof the temple.[117]
Nicean view of Jewish thought
Not only were Jews excluded from most of the deliberations,observed earlier, and their perspectives viewed as suspect or heterodox, buttheir thinking was also viewed as the fountain from which the heresies of thefourth centuries spewed regarding Christ.
The Christological doctrine which denies the divinityof Christ in the 3-4 century [[check this]] was not looked upon as anEbionitistic formulation, but as developments from it; first the heresy of Paulof Samosata, and then that of Arius. The Jewish root of these deviations wasvery clear to the minds of the defenders in the Council of Nicaea, as we gatherfrom St. Athanasius who accused Paul [of Samosata] of having a Jew as patron,namely, Zenobia . . . who for his doctrine merited to be called 'a disciple ofthe Jews' (26, 381-2), and of the Arians he says that 'all their stupiddoctrine was Jewish' (26, 381-2). The same affirmation is made by Alexander ofAlexandria . . . and by Lucifer of Cagliari . . . who calls the Arians-who madehim to suffer atrocious persecution in Palestine- 'the cursed disciples of theJews'."[118]
Skarsaune, seeks to demonstrate, contrary to thisperspective, that in reality the ideas about Christ propounded at Nicea camefrom Jewish theology, albeit clothed in Greek garb.[119] This form of thinking is certainly what one observes developing in the JewishChristian community within Israel and the Diaspora as evidenced by theteachings found in the Pauline and Johannine corpus. Paul, in his letterspresents a strong case for the deity of Jesus Christ (cf. Phil. 2:5-11; Rom.9:5; Titus 2:13) and the Trinity in his several benedictions (cf. 2 Cor.13:14). John, as well, develops a profound statement in his gospel of thedeity of the Son (1:1-3, 18; 8:58; 20:28) and personal relationship of theFather and the Son (14:15-18; 17:1-5).
The hope of Israel's restoration
Tertullian speaks of the ignorance of the Jews in putting Christto death, their subsequent expulsion from their land and the hope of futurerestoration.
For the Jews are pronounced 'apostate son, begotten indeedand raised on high, but who have not understood the Lord, and who have quiteforsaken the LORD, and have provoked unto anger the Holy One of Israel' . . . he has likewise had every more savory morsel torn from his throat, not to saythe very land of promise . . . the Jew . . . is a beggar in alien territory.
Having said this, he goes on to say, however, "for it willbe fitting for the Christian to rejoice, and not to grieve, at the restorationof Israel, if it be true, (as it is), that the whole of our hope is intimatelyunited with the remaining expectation of Israel."[121]
Origen, apart from his allegorical interpretations, has afairly balanced presentation of judgment on the Jewish nation, on the one hand,and a recognition of their future restoration, on the other hand.
Replacement Theology and the Triumph of Christianity inthe Roman Empire
With the Jewish roots of Christianity virtually lost in thechurch's memory, the minimalization of the Jews with their destruction, theneed for Christian apologists to justify the church's antiquity before the Romangovernment, and the theological orientation of the church altered by Greekphilosophical interpretation the stage was set for the church taking theblessings and identity of Israel to itself. The coup d'tat [[spelling on thisphrase]] to the change to replacement theology was the triumph of Christianityin the Roman Empire. For example, Kaiser says that when Constantine gatheredall the bishops together on the thirtieth year of his reign he viewed it as a"foreshadowing of the eschatological Messianic banquet."
Conclusion
Israel is the chosen people of God. Unfortunately they sooften as a people have failed to participate in God's blessings due to theirdisobedience. The last major judgment of God against His people was with theirrejection of the Messiah who came to them. Rather than believing the prophetsof the Hebrew Scriptures or the living Torah of God (the Messiah), they hadunbelief and were driven in large part from their land and their templeworship. Due to this rejection and their consequent rejection of the messageof the church, gradually the church turned hostile to the Jewish people andbegan to believe that the church became the recipients of the blessings of Godirrevocably given to the physical lineage of Jacob. In so doing, the church beganto reject Jewishness itself as well as the Jew.
Such response is dangerous to Christianity itself for it,along with Judaism, has its roots in the faith and Scriptures of Israel. Bagatti rightly perceives the actions of Eusebius toward the Jewish people innot losing the anchor of Israel for the faith of the church: "EvidentlyEusebius foresaw the disastrous consequences which would have followedregarding the origin of Christianity, if he associated himself with theextremists who obstinately rejected the Christians of the Jewish race asnongenuine."[124] To reject Israel is to reject thetree from which the church has received its life and its future.
[1] R. Steven Notley, "Anti-JewishTendencies in the Synoptic Gospels," Jewish Perspectives 51 (April-June, 1996), 27. Pictures of Ecclesia andSynogoga may be seen here.
[2] Origen, Origen against Celsus, 2.8, from Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-NiceneFathers, vol. 4 (Peabody, MA: HendricksonPublishers, Inc., 1995; originally published by Christian Literature PublishingCo., 1885). (Unless otherwise noted, all references of ante-Nicene Fathers areto this publication in ten volumes). It is interesting that later in hisdebate with Celsus, Origen uses the staying power in the land as a argument forthe prophetic authority of the Bible. Origen against Celsus 3.2. Later in this work, though, he says withconfidence that the Jewish people will never be restored to their "formercondition" because of their great sin against Jesus. Origen againstCelsus 4.22.
[3] Tuvya Zaretsky, "The Church Has Replaced theJewish People-A Perspective," Mishkan21 (2/1994):33. Most of this issue of Mishkan is dedicated to the matter of Replacement Theology.
[4] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., "An Assessment of'Replacement Theology:' The Relationship Between the Israel of theAbrahamic-Davidic Covenant and the Christian Church," Mishkan 21 (2/1994):9.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Jeffrey Siker, Disinheriting theJews (Louisville: Westminster, 1991),28-76, 77-127, 128-143, 144-184, 190, 191.
[7] Ray Pritz, "Replacing The Jewsin Early Christian Theology," Mishkan21 (2/1994):22.
[8] Kaiser, Jr., 9.
[9] David Larsen, Jews, Gentiles &the Church (Grand Rapids: Discovery HousePublishers, 1995), 22.
[10] Ibid., 26.
[11] Stanley A. Ellisen, Biography of a GreatPlanet (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers,Inc., 1975), 216. Ellisen also lists the Persian Gulf as a possibility but fewwould hold to this. For a chart providing key biblical texts for the landpromises, see Larsen, 26.
[12] Larsen., 34. David Larsen explains thisdynamic: "Abraham and his immediate descendants did not in God's purposepossess the promised land (but Abraham indeed purchased the burial-place forSarah as described in Genesis 23). Later the chosen people were dispersed incaptivity because of their disobedience. 'Any member of the line of David mayby sin forfeit his own share in the promise, but he may not forget that whichbelongs to his successors to eternity.' The promissory covenants of the OldTestament guarantee both the physical posterity and property of God's ancientpeople in perpetuity. Temporary dispossession does not mean loss of theinheritance. The fulfillment of the land-promise becomes critical for anyonecontemplating the fidelity of God to any or all of His promises." Larsen,22.
[13] See H. Wayne House, "David's Role inProphecy," Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, gen. ed. Mal Couch (Grand Rapids: KregelPublications, 1997), 85, 86.
[14] Paul Johnson sees Jesus within theHillel camp, for most part, taking the thinking of Hillel to logicalconclusion: "Jesus' rigorism in taking Hillel's teaching to its logical conclusionled him to cease to be an orthodox sage in any sense which had meaning and,indeed, cease to be a Jew. He created a religion which was sui generis, and it is accurately called Christianity. Heincorporated in his ethical Judaism an impressive composite of the eschatologyhe found in Isaiah, Daniel and Enoch, as well as what he found useful in theEssenes and the Baptist, so that he was able to present a clear perspective ofdeath, judgment and the afterlife. And he offered this new theology toeveryone within reach of his mission: pious Jews, the am ha-area, the Samaritans, the unclean, the gentileseven." Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987),120.
[15] See Larsen, 52-54 for a discussionof the future of Israel based on Romans 11.
[16] See Larsen for a discussion on the various agesto come, the millennial age, and the great likelihood of an intermediatekingdom. Larsen, 55-56.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Some believe the present reign of Christ in HisFather's throne is the fulfillment of Jesus to sit on David's throne. Sittingon the Father's throne in heaven in no way fulfills the literal reign predictedin the Old Testament nor is it in agreement with Jesus' own words. In Matt.25:31-32, Jesus indicates that this reign on David's throne to rule the nationsoccurs only in His second coming: "But when the Son of Man comes in Hisglory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him. . . ." See H. WayneHouse and Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1988), 26.
[19] The conversion of the Ethiopianeunuch under Philip (Acts 8:26-40) is an aberration from this; the Gospel tothe God-fearer Cornelius, as evidenced by Acts 11 is the public, decisive offerof gospel to the Gentile world.
[20] Johnson, 125.
[21] The Nazarenes were one of two majorJewish groups who were viewed as sects within Judaism,; they consideredthemselves to be equal to Christians of Gentile stock. They wished, as one oftheir exponents, Hegesippus, says "to appear as true Christians distinctfrom the heretics, even though of their own stock." Fr. BellarminoBagatti, The Church from the Circumcision:History and Archaeology of the Judaeo-Christians, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, No. 2 (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1984).
[22] James and then Simeon becameleaders, the first being a half-brother of Jesus and Simeon was elected becauseof being cousin of Christ. Ibid., 9.
[23] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.19.1, as found in Josephus, CompleteWorks, trans. William Whiston (GrandRapids: Kregel Publications, 1960). Also see Henk Jagersma, AHistory of Israel from Alexander the Great to Bar Kochba (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 136.
[24] It was thought earlier that theHebrew canon was completed at Jamnia but recent studies have demonstrated thatthe canon was finished no later than the second century B.C. and possibly asearly as the fourth century B.C. Jack P. Lewis, "What Do We Mean byJabneh?" Journal of Bible and Religion32 (1964):125-132 and Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization of HebrewScripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Hamdon: Conn.: Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Acts andSciences, Archon Books, 1976).
[25] Ray Pritz, Nazarene JewishChristianity, Studia Post-Biblica (Jerusalem-Leiden: The Magnes Press, The HebrewUniversity, E.J. Brill, 1988), 126.
[26] Jhan Moskowitz, "Some PossibleCauses for the Rise of Anti-Jewish Sentiments in the Early Church"(unpublished paper), 2.
[27] Harry R. Boer, A Short Historyof the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976), 44.
[28] Ibid. Jews were often involved instirring up trouble against Christians and so brought on themselves severeresponse at times from Christian apologists.
[29] Bagatti, The Church from theCircumcision, 28.
[30] Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity, 11.
[31] Bagatti, The Church from theCircumcision, 31. See the discussion onseveral possible derivations of the name in Pritz, Nazarene JewishChristinaity,11-12.
[32] Pritz, Nazarene JewishChristianity, 13.
[33] Bagatti identifies this withdrawalto Pella with a passage from the Ascension of Isaiah: "And many of thefaithful and of the saints who saw him crucified in whom they had hoped, JesusChrist our Lord, and of those also who had believed in him (without seeing him)during these days will remain his servants in a small number, fleeing fromdesert to desert, awaiting his coming." Ascension of Isaiah, 4:13, as cited by Bagatti, The Church fromthe Circumcision , 8.
[34] Jagersma indicates that the flight to Pella hasbeen the standard position of the past and still is among most scholars butalso speaks of recent scholarly questioning of this fact. He says, "inrecent times it has been increasingly challenged. Among other things, scholarspoint out the great distance between Pella and Jerusalem (about sixty miles),involving a journey through a region controlled by the Romans, and that in 66Pella was plundered by Jewish partisans, which certainly would not haveencouraged the Jewish Christians to settle there. It therefore seems mostlikely that the members of the earliest community in Jerusalem shared the fateof their fellow-citizens in the siege and after its capture by Titus in 70. All this does not exclude the possibility that individual members of theJerusalem community like Johanan ben Zakkai . . . could have fled before orduring the siege." Jagersma, 136, 137.
[35] C.K. Barrett, The Gospel of John& Judaism, trans. D.M. Smith ((Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1975), 69.
[36] Johnson, 146, 147. D. Moody Smithcomments on this benediction designed against Jewish Christians: "Presumablyits purpose was to smoke out Christ-confessors within the synagogue, who couldnot pronounce this benediction, or malediction, against themselves. Thisreformulation of the Twelfth Benediction took place in the Rabbinic Academy atJamnia. According to tradition, it was done by a sage called Samuel the Smallunder the auspices of Rabbi Gamaliel II, and it has been dated in the ninthdecade of the first century." D. Moody Smith, "Judaism and the Gospel ofJohn," in Jews and Christians, Exploring the Past, Present, and Future, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Vol. 1 of SharedGround Among Jews and Christians, a Series of Explorations (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 85.
[37] See the study by Pritz, NazareneJewish Christianity, 102-107, especiallythe identification of the Nazarenes within the minim; also Bagatti, The Church from theCircumcision, 95, 98-106.
[38] Jacob Jocz, The Jewish People and JesusChrist (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,1949), 180.
[39] Bagatti, The Church from theCircumcision 31.
[40] Ibid., 34, 35.
[41] Origen against Celsus, 5.61.
[42] Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity, 21.
[43] See Notley, 20-34 for the view ofthe synoptic Gospels being anti-Semitic.
[44] Quoted in Louis Feldman, "Is the NewTestament Antisemitic?" Moment , vol.15, no. 6 (Dec 1990):35.
[45] Feldman, 33, 34.
[46] See the review of options given bySmith, "Judaism and the Gospel of John," 79-83.
[47] Smith, 82.
[48] Feldman, 35.
[49] Ibid., 50. Feldman speaks of RabbiLewis Browne who "remarked that Jesus was not the founder but the foundling ofChristianity, or, as the jingle would have it, 'A man named Saul, later calledPaul, came and spoiled it all.'" Ibid.
[50] Ibid.
[51] On the other hand, the use of sunagwghv (synagogue) may simply refer toa "assembly" of believers, into whose midst some come claiming to beJews but are not really.
[52] James H. Charlesworth,"Exploring Opportunities for Rethinking Relations among Jews andChristians, "Jews and Christians: Exploring the Past, Present, andFuture, Shared Ground Among Jews andChristians, A Series of Explorations, vol. 1, gen. Ed. James H. Charlesworth(New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1990), 43.
[53] An important form of rhetoric at thetimes was taught by Jews such as Theodorus and Caecilius of Calacte andvituperative rhetoric was well used at this time. Feldman, 52.
[54] The Dead Sea Scrolls, in the Manualof Discipline, urges the readers to hatethe children of darkness. Manual of Discipline 1.10, 11a. Also see Hymns 4.10, 20. See Feldman, 52.
[55] See Ezek. 16:48; 23:37 and Isa.56:8-11; 57:3.
[56] Pesachim 57a.
[57] James H. Charlesworth, "Christiansand Jews in the First Six Centuries," in Christianity and RabbinicJudaism, ed. Hershel Shanks (Washington,D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992), 309
[58] Ibid.
[59] Moskowitz, 12.
[60] Ibid., 12.
[61] The dating of the Didache has beenthe subject of much debate. Part of the problem resides in the probabledevelopment of the Didache in several recensions over several decades. KirsoppLake views the "Two Ways" to reflect most likely the early firstcentury while the remainder may be late first century or early second century. Kirsopp Lake, "The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," TheApostolic Fathers, Vol. 1 in TheLoeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), 306,307; the International Standard Bible Encylopaedia places the date between A.D. 80-120 (TheInternational Standard bible Encyclopaedia,vol. III, James Orr, gen. Ed. [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.1946], 1898) whereas the Enchiridion Patristicum places it between A.D. 80-100.M. J. Rout de Journel, Enchiridion Patristicum (Barcione: Herder, 1969), p.1. The earliest suggestion (at least of some portions of the Didache) is thatof Geoff Trowbridge with a date between A.D. 60-100. www.qtm.net/~trowbridge/didache.htm, 1.
[62] I have largely followed thepresentation of Moskowitz on evidence of Jewish influence in the Didache.
[63] Moskowitz, 13-14.
[64] Bellarmino Bagatti, The Churchfrom the Gentiles in Palestine, trans.Eugene Hoade (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1971; reprinted 1984), 26.
[65] James Kleist, Ancient ChristianWriters, The Works of the Fathers in Translation (New York: Newman Press, 1946), 31, 32. That this letter, even asRomans, was not written to an audience entirely composed of Jews is clear frompassages such as Rom. 11:6-14.
[66] Epistle of Barnabas 4:6-9, in The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 1 The Loeb Classical Library, 351, 353.
[67] Epistle of Barnabas 4.1, in The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 1 in The Loeb Classical Library, 391.
[68] The Instruction of Commodianus, 210.
[69] Johnson, 134.
[70] Ibid., 134.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Eusebius 4.6.4. The ChurchHistory of Eusebius, trans. Arthur CushmanMcGiffert, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wall, second series, vol.1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995). (Unless otherwise noted, allreferences to Eusebius are to this publication); Begatti, The Churchfrom the Circumcision, 87.
[73] Eusebius, in abridging the account of Ariston ofPella, says, "After these things a decree and a disposition of Hadrian forbadethe whole people to put a foot in the region adjoining Jerusalem; and so forthe Jews, alas! it was forbidden to contemplate even from afar their homeland.So does Ariston of Pella tell us." Bagatti, The Church from the Gentilesin Palestine, 8.
[74] Eusebius 4.5.1-4: ". . . until the siege ofthe Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops insuccession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and tohave received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved bythose who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of theepiscopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews whocontinued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place atthis time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans,were conquered after several battles. But since the bishops of thecircumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of theirnames from the beginning. The first, then was James, the so-called brother ofthe Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchaeus; thefifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh , John; the eighth, Matthias; theninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; thethirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth,Judas."
[75] Eusebius, The Church History 4.6.4. See Yigael Yadin, Bar-Kokhba (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), 22, for atreatment of the banishment of the Jews from Jerusalem.
[76] Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision, 10.
[77] Ibid.
[78] Ibid., 87. For the view that theNicene council was heavily influenced by Jewish theological ideas see, Oscar Skarsaune,"The Christological Dogma of Nicaea-Greek or Jewish?," Mishkan 1 (1/1984), 40-49. Also see Oscar Skarsaune, Incarnation:Myth or Fact? trans. Trygve R. Skarsten(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1946). Also see various influencesthat Jewish Christianity had on Gentile Christian writers in Bagatti, TheChurch from the Circumcision, 82-86.
[79] Ignatius, Epistle of Ignatius tothe Philippians, 14.
[80] Origen, Origen against Celsus, 428, 429.
[81] Ignatius, Epistle of Ignatius tothe Magnesians, 11. Elsewhere he says theJews are "murders of the Lord," Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, 11., and a "murderer of Christ." Epistleof Ignatius to the Philippians, 13.
[82] Origen, Against Celsus, 2.8.
[83] Melito, Homily on the Passion, lines 711-716.
[84] Pritz clarifies the broader use ofthe term minim: "A survey of the termreveals minim who clearly livedbefore Christianity, minim whoreject the resurrection from the dead and therefore cannot be Christians, etc. However, one will also see many places where the minim clearly are Christians and most likely Jewish Christians. Generally, it is safe to say that minim are Jews who reckon themselves to be Jews but whoare excluded by the rabbis." Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity, 103.
[85] See the text accompanying footnote38. MAKE SURE THIS IS STILL CORRECT AFTEREDITING.
[86] Bagatti, The Church from theCircumcision, 102.
[87]Ibid., 101.
[88] Ibid.
[89] These Jews, still smarting from theRoman defeat and the loss of their temple probably had great difficulty withJesus who spoke of the destruction of the temple and who also was not aliberating Messiah they had anticipated. The Talmud does seem to indicate thatthey viewed Jesus to be in the line of David but never received officialanointing as was true of former kings and priests. See Sanhedrin 43a in the Babylonian Talmud where it is recorded "(Rabbi)Ulla said, 'Would youbelieve that any defence would have been so zealously sought for him? He was adeceiver, and the All-merciful says: 'You shall not spare him, neither shallyou conceal him.' It was different with Jesus, for he was near to thekingship." Cf. chart in H. Wayne House, Chronological and BackgroundCharts of the New Testament (GrandRapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 77.
[90] Though the widespread treatment ofJewish Christians was hostile there were those among the Jews who were moremoderate. "Of Rabbi Judah b. Levi (3rd cent.) . . . we read 'that he wastolerant also of the Judaeo-Christians, albeit often they annoyed him; that herefused to curse one of them, saying rather the words of Psalm 149, 9: 'Themercy of God embraces all his creatures'." Bagatti, The Church from theCircumcision , 108.
[91] Justin Martyr, First Apology, 31. This was also noted by Eusebius in EcclesiasticalHistory, 4. 8. Translation by KirsoppLake, The Loeb Classical Library(London: Heinemann Ltd. and Harvard University Press, 1926), 322, 333:"only Christians whom Bar Chocheba, the leader of the rebellion of theJews, commanded to be punished severely, if they did not deny Jesus as theMessiah and blaspheme him." See Barrett, 10.
[92] Suetonius, Claudius, 25
[93] Suetonius, Nero, 16.
[94] Martyrdom of Polycarp 13:1 trans. Kirsopp Lake in The ApostolicFathers, Loeb Series, vol. 2 (Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, 1913), 329.
[95] Martyrdom of Polycarp 12:2.
[96] Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:2-3.
[97] Martyrdom of Polycarp 18:1.
[98] The Epistle to Diognetus, 5:17. A contrary opinion on all of this wasforcefully argued by James Parkes in an appendix to The Conflict ofthe Church and the Synagogue (New York: Hermon Press, 1974).
[99] Justin Martyr, Dialogue withTrypho, 137.
[100] Justin Martyr, Justin'sHortatory Address to the Greeks 13.
[101] Barrett, 51; Justin Martyr, Dialoguewith Trypho 39.: "'Now it is notsurprising,' I continued, 'that you hate us who hold these opinions, andconvict you of a continual hardness of heart."
[102] Origen, de Principiis, 4.1.8. (Latin). Origen provides examples of whathe understood as the proper method of interpretation in that the Jews werephysical shadows of the spiritual people of God. He speaks of "spiritualIsraelites," the church, of whom the physical Jews were the type. Ibid.
[103] Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision, 90.
[104] Origen, Origen against Celsus, 2.5.
[105] Justin Martyr, Dialogue withTrypho, 29.2.
[106] Ibid.
[107] Epistle of Barnabas, 4.6-7, trans. Kirsopp Lake, LoebClassical Library (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1965).
[108] Epistle of Barnabas 13.
[109] Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, 10.2-3, trans. Kirsopp Lake, LoebClassical Library (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1965).
[110] Moskowitz, 7-8.
[111] Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision, 26. The millennial idea was notconfined to Asia Minor but existed in Egypt (5th-6th cent.) Bagatti, 28. Origen, likewise, speaks of Jews as persecutors of Christians, placingChristians in the same category as the Hebrew prophets and the Lord persecutedby the Jews. Origen, Origen to Africanus, 389.
[112] Justin Martyr, Dialogue withTrypho, 240.
[113] Bagatti, The Church from theCircumcision, 89.
[114]Ibid., 90.
[115] Ibid., 11. Epiphanius greatlyerred in this assessment as the fathers Justin, Tertullian, Origen, andEusebius indicate and the research of Pritz on the Nazarenes, in contrast toother Jewish sects, demonstrates.
[116] Ibid.
[117] See Ibid., 90-91 for a descriptionof Jerome's arguments.
[118] Ibid., 90.
[119] Skarsaune, "The Christological Dogma," 40-49.
[120] Tertullian, On Modesty, 4.54.
[121] Ibid.
[122] Walter Kaiser, An Assessment of"Replacement Theology," Mishkan 21 (2/1994):9.
[123] Ibid.
[124] Bagatti, The Church from theCircumcision, 84.