Romans_Roots of Bias, Part 1

So much happened to the early church towards the latter half of the first century:

-Stephen's death by stoning was a shock to the new believers, but even more devastating perhaps was the death of James, the brother of Jesus, who was a disciple and leader in the church at Jerusalem;

-Peter and Paul were both executed, along with countless other believers, when Nero made Christians the scapegoat for Rome's burning;

-the temple, along with the city of Jerusalem, was destroyed after a year-long siege of Jerusalem by the Roman General, Titus, an aftermath of the Jewish wars against the Romans; the Jewish historian Josephus describes the horror of that long siege of starvation and death for the residents trapped inside the walls of Jerusalem; [Source: http://www.templemount.org/destruct2.html ]

-laws were passed that forbade any Jews "to enter Jerusalem upon penalty of death" – this included Jewish believers in Christ, even though Gentile believers were still allowed to be there; thus segregating Jewish believers from Gentile believers, and the Jewish believers were necessary to the Gentile believers to help them grow in the scriptures that the Gentiles had not had access to nor desire for in their lives previous to conversion; [Source: http://www.templemount.org/destruct2.html ]

-forced segregation in some areas then, caused the Jewish believers to become a minority among the growing number of Gentile believers, and the Gentile believers, having come out of pagan Rome, had little understanding of things Jewish and little tolerance for such as well; thus the majority rule was by Gentile believers who had as of yet had little exposure to the Torah, but often retained long-standing and deep-rooted connections to things pagan without understanding the conflict that this caused in their new-found faith. I believe that this was what Paul was dealing with in the church at Rome in the conflicts between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers, especially as anti-Semitism, anti-anything-Jewish, began to take serious hold in the church.

Thus, by the end of the first century, this portion of a letter written by Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, demonstrated the Christian bias that had taken root in the in the predominantly Gentile "Christian" church, which by the way, soon became known as the Catholic Church:

"Do not be led astray by those erroneous teachings and ancient fables which are utterly worthless. Indeed, if at this date we still conform to Judaism, then we own that we have not received grace…Consequently, if the people who were given to obsolete practices faced the hope of a new life, and if these no longer observe the Sabbath, but regulate their calendar by the Lord's Day…Assuredly whoever is called by a name other than this [Christian] is not of God. Hence, put away the deteriorated leaven, a leaven stale and sour, and turn to the new leaven, that is, Jesus Christ…It is absurd to have Jesus Christ on the lips, and at the same time live like a Jew. No; Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism believed in Christianity, and in its
bosom was assembled everyone professing faith in God."

[Source: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/magnesians.html]

Obviously, you were a Christian only if you observed Sunday as the new Sabbath. And Messianic Jews, if they had been called by that name back in this period of time, of course, would not have been allowed to identify themselves as such and still be "of God." I don't know yet what the Jewish believers were calling themselves, but they might not have gone along with the name of "Christians" – perhaps they were calling themselves "followers of the Way" or "disciples of Yeshua" or some other name that would not have been acceptable to Ignatius. His understanding about "leaven" and what it stands for is sadly lacking as he equates it to Jesus who was without sin (leaven = sin). And finally, Judaism believed in Christianity? It isn't about Christianity, is it? It's about Jesus, plain and simple. This is a rather arrogant statement, it seems to me, full of judgment and pride.

By the second century, Rome had wiped out much of the Jewish population and was able to ban worship on the Sabbath without fear of reprisal from a strong Jewish community, as there no longer was a vital community of Jews. The church fathers must have applauded that!

Here is another example of the Christian's attitude regarding the Sabbath day, among other things, as written by Justin Martyr, one of the church fathers of that century. It is shocking that the Church Fathers, of which surely Justin Martyr was a good representative, believed that the Law was given as a
punishment to the Jews, as it was imposed on them, which doesn't sound like the Law was good at all, contrary to the Word of God; AND circumcision was given so that they would be sure to be separated from "Christians," among other things. Talk about missing the point! This is from his "Second Apology" and the portions reproduced here are specifically from a discussion he was having with a Jew who was not a believer:

Chap. XVIII:" For we too, would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you – namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts."

Chap. XVI: "For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem. For you are not recognized among the rest of men by any other mark than your fleshly circumcision."

Chap. XIX: "This circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer."

Chap. XXI: "Moreover, that God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and impose on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness, and that of your fathers…"

[Source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/justin-apology2.asp ]

Please keep in mind, that while these statements are erroneous and inflammatory, there were things said by both of these men that were sound doctrine. It is no different than when we get to Martin Luther, the man who clarified "salvation by faith through grace" and yet was even more inflammatory in his anti-Semitism than either of these two men just quoted. Hitler used many of Martin Luther's statements to justify his actions against the Jews.

The reason these quotes are given here is so that WE can see where some of our erroneous thinking has come from, and so that we can correct any anti-Jewishness in us and prove that the customs which we hold today are from the Word of God, rather than from the traditions of men, especially anti-Jewish men.

(To be continued in next posting…)