An Honest Debate/Whoeveristhirsty.com

A reader just attempted to post one of the most disrespectful, hateful rants I’ve ever seen.  Since I was unable to return an email to him I am responding here.   Bob from Dover and everyone else: your comments are welcome here but, please, read the rules first; and if you can not express yourself in a respectful manner then do not expect your posts to be published here.  You don’t like being called names and neither do those you disagree with. 

As you can see by reading some of the posts to previous articles on this blog, there was a time I allowed myself to be bated into arguments with people like Bob.  In doing this I lost site of the reason I started blogging in the first place.   But this site is no longer open to those who can add nothing more to the conversation than hate filled diatribes against Christians, Jews, creationists and others they hate. 

So for the anti-religious fanatics out there; take your bigotry somewhere else.  There are many sites and forums where your venom is welcomed.  This site is for thinking men and women who are interested in respectful and thoughtful discussion. — Mark

I have hesitated to get into a discussion of my view of creation, lest I be sidetracked and lose sight of the focus of this series, an examination and defense of the God of the Old Testament.  But upon reflection, I think I should spend some time on my interpretation of Genesis 1-3, since I am going to be drawing lessons concerning God and man from it.

 Before I share my understanding of Genesis, let me say a few things about the interpretations that have historically been offered by both Christians and Jews for these chapters.  I do this become many atheists, particularly new atheists; try to put us believers in a box by forcing us to defend one particular interpretation of Genesis.  They seem to think that if we take the Biblical account of creation seriously then we have to defend a strictly literal, young earth creationism.  If we offer a more nuanced view then we are accused of retrofitting, or trying to make the Biblical data fit with the findings of modern science. 

But the fact is, Genesis 1-3, like many other portions of scripture lends itself to a number of interpretations.   According to the Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, the late Pinchas Lapide, there is a rabbinic axiom that states, “In each Bible word there are 70 interpretations.”  [i]  All one has to do to confirm this maxim is to look at the many ways the Genesis account of creation has been interpreted down through the ages.

When it comes to the first chapter of Genesis and the seven days of creation, it is interesting to note that an insistence on a strictly literal reading of the text is of relatively recent origins.   Many of the early church fathers held views that included literal and allegorical interpretations of Genesis.  Origen (180-254 AD), not one of my favorite theologians, held that the physical world was literally the creation of God, but as with most things, he did not take the days of creation literally.   More importantly, Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD)  believed that the point of Genesis one is that God created the physical realm, but he did not take the seven days literally, instead he believed that the days of creation should be understood as categories.   he Wikipedia article on creationism (which actually does a very good job of explaining the history of creationism) says this about Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “Like Augustine, [Aquinas] asserted the need to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering while cautioning “that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”[ii]

What was true in Christianity was also true in Judaism.  For example, Philo (20 BC - 50 AD) believed that creation happened in a single moment, and that the six days of creation meets a need for order that accords with the perfect number, seven.   Abraham ibn (Ezra 1092-1167 AD) was a creationist, and yet he did not believe in taking an overly literal view of Genesis, and the great Rabi, (Moses Maimonides 1135-1204 AD) explicitly states that “parts of Genesis 1-3 cannot be taken literally,” and all these things were said in a pre-scientific age. 

So there have been many different interpretations of Genesis, but in spite of the diversity of thought, there is unanimity on two issues:  (1) The universe had a beginning and (2) God created it.

Once again referring to the Wikipedia article, “Creationism covers a spectrum of beliefs…most people labeled “creationists” are those who object to specific parts of science for religious reasons; however many (if not most) people who believe in a divine act of creation do not categorically reject those parts of science.”[iv]  I would word this differently.  I am one of those whom the author(s) of this article would say “objects to specific parts of science.”  I have no problem at all with science.  However, I do reject certain unproven scientific theories. 

To help you visualize the wide range of creationist views held by Bible Believing Christian (and Jews), the look at the following chart. Wikipedia is very helpful:

As the chart reflects, these are the major creationist views.  The chart is not completey accurate in every respect, and there are other views not shown on this chart.  But the reader can see there are a variety of opinions, and each of them is consistent with a high view of scripture.

I am an Old Earth creationist.  In addition, I am what the maker of this chart would refer to as the gap creationist (I prefer to my position as the Summary Statement theory, but The Gap theory works fine).  I also am firmly committed to intelligent design.  The former explains my interpretation of Genesis one, the latter explains my view of the universe (I question whether intelligent design should even be called creationism since it is agnostic on the identity of the designer.  In other words, ID is not necessarily a defense of Biblical creationism). .        

The description of Gap creationism provided by the Wikipedia chart is fairly accurate.  The definition of intelligent design is, in my estimation, remarkably simplistic and inadequate.  I think every view of creation would in some measure hold to intelligent design.  But to go into any further analysis would head this discussion in a direction that is far removed from where I want it to go.  But so that you will know where I am coming from, let me give you a brief explanation of my view. 

When I read the first chapter of Genesis I note that there are no time indicators in the text.  In other words, we are told that the universe had a beginning but we are not told when it was.  Nor are we told how long it was between the creation of all things in the beginning and God’s specific creative work with regard to this planet.  So since the text is not specific, there may be a significant amount of time between the creation of the universe and God’s specific creative work described in the rest of the chapter.   I believe there was.  Also, note that the text tells us only what the world looked like at the point when God began His creative work; it does not tell us how long it existed in that state before God went to work.   Moreover, it does not tell us if chaos was its original condition or whether something happened to put it in that state.  Importantly, there are many things that Moses does not tell us.

I take the days of creation literally, but to me they can only be reconciled with other things we know to be true if we determine the point from which the action is being viewed.   I believe there is good textual proof for believing that we are viewing the action from the surface of the earth.  Viewed from this angle the creative work of God, though miraculous, makes sense, at least to me.   It is particularly helpful in explaining the two big problems in chapter one; plants without sunlight, and the “creation” of the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day of creation.

If I am correct, and the creative work of God is being viewed from the surface of the earth, then this is how I would understand the scene unfolding; the darkness spoken of in verse two  was not a universal darkness, but the condition of the earth’s atmosphere at the time God began His special work on this planet.   I envision an atmosphere so full of particulate matter that the light of the sun, stars and the reflected light from the moon, could not penetrate it.   Then, on the first day of creation, at the command of God, the atmosphere began to clear so that the light of the sun could be seen on the surface of the earth.   That the Sun was already created seems obvious to me because the text says that the morning and even were the first day.  This suggests that the earth is rotating on its axis toward some light source.  The sun would seem to be the leading candidate.

During the next few days as God brought other things quickly into being, the atmosphere continued to clear.  On day four the atmosphere was clear enough to see the sun, moon and stars.   Hebrew scholar and theologian, Gleason Archer, believes that the days of creation represent stages of creation rather than literal days, but he does agree that our English texts, which say that God created the stars, is actually referring to a prior act of creation: 

“Genesis 1:14-19 reveals that in the fourth creative stage God parted the cloud cover enough for direct sunlight to fall on earth and for accurate observation of the movements of the sun, moon and stars to take place.  Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day; rather it inform us that the sun, moon and stars created on Day one as the source of light had been placed in their appointed places by God with a view to their eventually functioning as indicators of time to terrestrial observers.  The Hebrew verb wayya’aś in v. 16 should better be rendered “Now [God] had made the two great luminaries, etc.”[v]

 So there you have a summary of my understanding of Genesis one.  But for my purposes in this series the important thing is going to be that God created the human race in His image and likeness because in talking about the doings of the God of the Old Testament, and whether they are right or wrong, we must not only consider who the God of the Old Testament is, but who we are.  How else can we determine whether or not His dealings with the human race are right or not? 

 [i] Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, p. 57

[ii] Wikipedia, Creationism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism (Note, I have not always found Wikipedia a good source.  This article contains some things I disagree with, but overall it is a very good article.)

[iii] Ibid

[iv] ibid

[v] Gleason L. Archer Jr., The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 61

I have been interested in anti-Semitism since I was a boy, although I didn’t know that was what it was called. I don’t remember how old I was at the time — I was very young — but I can recall the exact moment when I first became interested in the subject; or should I say, I became drawn to the subject.

My parents and I were watching a program on television. I can even remember the name of the program, Let My People Go (I have recently learned this documentary was produced in 1965, so I would have been 12 or 13 at the time I saw it). It was the kind of documentary you will never see on television today. It was a defense of Zionism (I didn’t know that term either). It was the story of the suffering of the Jewish people. The point they made at the end of the documentary - after I threw up - was that after the Holocaust the Jewish people now had a home of their own in Israel.

I really did throw up. It happened when I saw footage of the Holocaust and death-camps for the first time in my life. It started mildly enough, but my mother realized something was coming that perhaps I should be protected from. I can still remember her asking my dad, “Millard, do you think he should be watching this?” I don’t remember his answer, but he must have thought that it would be alright, because I was allowed to continue to watch it.

But when they began to show footage of the liberation of the camps I began to feel queazy. The only dead body I had ever seen was that of our local druggist, Mr. Bloodhart, at his funeral. I wasn’t prepared for images of bodies being dumped into mass graves, or bulldozers moving piles of corpses at Buchenwald. I remember it vividly because it was at the moment I saw the bulldozers moving the bodies that I vomited, and started crying.

I remember that I was hard to console. My Mom yelled something at my father; I can’t remember what it was. Knowing mom it was probably, “I told you so.” I wanted to know who these people were, and I wanted to know who killed them. But most of all I wanted to know why they were killed. I have wanted to know ever since.

In high school debate I became friends with a number of Jewish boys and girls. I like to say that they taught me how to argue. That’s not completely true, because my mom taught me a great deal, but I learned a new kind of polemics from my Jewish friends. I know that debate is a part of Jewish culture. I don’t know if the style of argument they taught me was just their style of arguing or whether it is a part of Jewish culture generally, but it is still my preferred way of arguing.

I remember wondering how anyone could hate the Jews, but I soon learned my Jewish friends were very aware that some did. I remember that someone thought it would be a great joke to bring a tape of American Nazi leader, George Lincoln Rockwell, to class and play it on our debate coach’s real-to-real recorder. All of us Gentiles pretended we believed it. Our Jewish friends didn’t think it was funny. Even though we bent over backwards apologizing and assuring them we didn’t believe it, one of the better debaters, Howard Minacker, insisted that we allow him to give a rebuttal the next day.

I learned to love these guys and gals, and I became very curious about Judaism. My friends were more than willing to educate me, and I found they were very interested in learning about my kind of Christianity too. They had never heard of Christians who loved the Jews.

After my high school experiences, the Jews were no longer just characters in Bible stories, but real people with faces and a history I wanted to learn more about. Along the way I read a lot about the Jews, Hitler, and the Nazis. In fact, I’ve read so much about Hitler and the Holocaust that I really don’t want to read about it anymore. But I do. I don’t want to forget, and I don’t want the world to forget either.

As I continued to read I eventually came to understand that anti-Semitism pre-dated the Nazis, and that the church’s hands were stained with Jewish blood. Understand, I grew up in a Christian Zionist home before the term was coined. I was taught to love the Jewish people and be thankful for the many things the Jews have given us. For example, I had polio as a child, and my father often mentioned from the pulpit (he was a pastor) that a Jewish man had come up with the polio vaccine. He used this to illustrate the truth of God’s promise to Abraham that all of the world would be blessed through him. He also taught me that the reason America has been blessed like no other nation in this history of the world, is that no nation has ever treated the Jewish people as well as they have been treated in this country (”blessing I will bless”). And he taught me, and I still believe it, that if we ever turned our backs on the Jewish people God would judge America (”cursing I will curse). In retrospect, I think my father’s love of Israel was the reason he let me watch Let My People Go.

So when I learned that there was such a thing as Christian anti-Semitism, I was genuinely surprised. But having read Foxes book of Martyrs, I was initially relieved to find that it was a Catholic problem. Then I learned about Luther. So now I had a new question. I no longer wanted to know why the Nazis hated the Jews; I wanted to know why Christians hated them, and this question has led me to a search for answers. I think I have arrived at part of the answer, and in a series of articles on this blog I will be presenting my case.

Several years ago, Ruth R. Wisse, who was a professor of Yiddish literature at McGill University at the time, called anti-Semitism, “the most durable and successful ideology of the ideology-besotted 20^th century.”  I agree with this; but I would add that anti-Semitism is one of the most durable and successful ideologies of all time.  The success of anti-Semitism over the last 2000 years can be seen in a simple statistic cited by George Will a few years ago, “If the percentage of the world’s population that was Jewish in the era of the Roman Empire were Jewish today, there would be 200 million Jews. There are 13 million.”

Those who study anti-Semitism have noted several strains of the virus. For example, there was a pagan anti-Semitism that predated Christianity, and there was the racial, or blood anti-Semitism of the Third Reich, and there is the Islamic strain, but the most virulent form of the disease, and the one which has done the most harm, is Christian anti-Semitism.

This is odd considering the fact that we worship a Jew whom we believe to be the Jewish Messiah and the fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures. This is odd, considering the fact that all of the apostles were Jewish. This is odd, given the fact that we accept the entire Jewish Bible as our Old Testament. This is odd, given the fact that all but two books of the New Testament were written by Jewish men.  This is odd, that we have persecuted the Jews, nevertheless it is true.  Most of the damage done to the Jewish people in the last 2000 years has been done by Christians in the name of Christ–Christians, who call themselves the New Israel, persecuting those who had the audacity to continue to claim the name of Israel for themselves.

So, where did this hatred come from?  The answer to this question has to begin with an acknowledgment that there has been hostility between these two great religions from the very beginning. It should also be noted–and I say this with much caution–the Jews drew first blood.

I say this with caution because I anticipate some of my readers may be Jewish, and I understand their sensitivity to the often repeated accusation that they have somehow provoked their own persecution. I am not, and will not be making this charge. But if we are going to locate the causes of Christian anti-Semitism we are going to need to start at the beginning, because the seeds of hatred were sown in those early years. And if there is a need for Christians to face up to their past sins–and I passionately believe that there is–then it is also necessary for the Jews to face up to an unpleasant chapter in their own history, and unfortunate fact that the hands of neither religion are completely clean.

The Jewish people understandably resist any suggestion that their leaders were directly involved in planning and carrying out the crucifixion of Jesus. We would be sensitive to this charge if we had been accused of deicide too.  But while Jewish apologists propose other explanations for the execution of Jesus,  Jewish involvement in the persecution of the early church is harder to get around, because the record is clear; long before Christians were in a position to persecute the Jews, Jews were persecuting Christians.

The most well known and influential Christian of the first century was Saul of Tarsus (Paul). He was a Jew and proud of it. In fact, he never called himself a Christian, but on a number of occasions he boldly declared, “I am a Jew.” He was also the driving force behind the earliest pogrom against Christians, and this pogrom was authorized and approved by the highest echelons of the Jewish religious establishment in Jerusalem. So if the case can be made that these same men had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus, it’s harder to maintain that that they had nothing to do with the persecution of His followers because one of their own turned state’s evidence.

This is Paul’s own confession to his part in the pogrom: “I thought to myself that I had to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lockup many of the saints in prison, having received authority from the chief priests [emphasis added], but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them. And as I punished them often in all the synagogues, I tried to force them to blaspheme; and being furiously enraged at them, I kept pursuing them even to foreign cities.” Thus, it was no coincidence that Paul found himself on the road to Damascus, with “the authority and commission of the chief priests” when he had his conversion experience.

But while Paul spearheaded the first Jewish persecution of Christians, it would not be the last. Another example is the execution of James the brother of Jesus. This persecution, recorded by Josephus, was orchestrated by the then high priest, Ananus, and ordered by an illegally called meeting of the Sanhedrin. And so the instigation and participation of the religious leaders of Israel in the first persecution of the followers of Jesus (all of whom were Jews themselves), and the subsequent involvement of this same leadership in similar activities, lends a certain credibility to the New Testament’s charge that these same men were complicit in the crucifixion of Jesus.

These charges are especially compelling in light of the fact that Paul was not the only one to turn state’s evidence. We know, for example, of Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramathea, both of whom would have had first hand knowledge of the inner workings of the Sanhedrin.  In addition to these two named witnesses, Luke tells us, “A great number of priests were obedient to the faith.”  In light of all of this we have to at least make an honest examination of the New Testament’s charge that the leadership of Israel was in large part responsible for the arrest, torture, and crucifixion of Jesus. We will do this in our next post.

One of the charges that I have frequently come across as I read books on anti-Semitism by Jewish authors is the charge that anti-Semitism is embedded in our sacred documents. The average evangelical would be shocked by some of their examples. I know I was.

For example, every book I have read on anti-Semitism refers to John 8:44a, “You are of your father the devil.” Evangelical Christians read these verses and don’t see anti-Semitism. The reason for this is we read them in their context. In context, Jesus was not speaking of the Jewish people in general, but accusing a particular group of Jews–the leaders of the nation–of proving themselves sons of the devil by plotting His murder.

How then, do these Jewish writers read Jesus’ statement as anti-Semitic? First, they note that their Christian anti-Semitic persecutors have often dehumanized Jews by referring to them as children of Satan, and John 8:44a has been their proof text. Second, even in its context, this verse contains a charge which if offensive to Jewish sensibilities. The charge I am referring to is the charge that there was Jewish complicity in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jews are very sensitive to this charge, and understandably so. If you and your ancestors had been called “Christ Killers” and persecuted for it, you might be a little sensitive too. Some Jewish writers have even suggested that this charge must be dropped if there is ever to be a meaningful reconciliation between Christianity and Judaism. Others have called upon the church to reject these offensive portions of the scripture because of their embedded anti-Semitism.

Of course, our Jewish friends cannot expect us to renounce the passages in question anymore than we would expect them to renounce the Torah. So how do we respond to their concerns? First, let me point out that if all of the texts in question were collected and printed, the pamphlet produced would be very small compared to a collection of similar texts that could be assembled from the Tenach (our Old Testament).

The prophets of Israel had some terribly insulting things to say about their own people, charges they brought against them in the name of God. An anti-Semite could easily seize upon these statements to justify his hatred of the Jews. In fact, they have done so. So should we remove these verses from the Tenach because some have misused them?

Second, it should be noted that the New Testament’s charges against the leaders of Israel for their role in the crucifixion of Christ were not made by gentiles, but by their fellow Jews. My brother, Clark, likes to say these charges are “a family quarrel,” and that we gentiles should “stay out of it.” He makes a very good point. The apostles were a band of Jewish men. And while their exact charges are different from the charges of the former prophets, their style in making them is very similar. Critics of the New Testament should remember that when they read the New Testament they are reading a Jewish book (Luke being the only Gentile writer, and we are not even certain that he was not Jewish). It is in this Jewish book that we hear charges being made by Jewish men against other Jewish men and their own nation.

I have heard other Christian Zionist try to get around these accusatory texts, or try to explain them away. I will not do this. The texts speak for themselves. But, laying aside my belief that they are the word of God, and viewing them as nothing more than ancient first centuries documents produced by the apostles or their associates, I make this very simple observation: the charges they contain are either true or they are not. It seems to me that this is the issue we should focus on. If they are false then, yes, they should be rejected. BUT if they are factually true, then they are not anti-Semitic but a powerful indictment to which Israel should respond.

So what are the charges? The first charge the New Testament makes is not made against the nation as a whole, but against Israel’s spiritual and political leadership–the scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees, and even the High Priests, Annas and Caiphas. The apostles–Jews all–brought these charges against the leaders of their own nation. They accused them to their face. The specific charges they brought were that they plotted and carried out the crucifixion of Jesus, using the Romans as their instrument.

The second charge is against all of Israel. The charge is that they rejected Jesus. I think even the most angry non-believing Jew would have to plead guilty to this charge. He might disagree that Jesus was the Messiah, but they would certainly agree that he rejects Him and His Messianic claims. According to the New Testament, this is Israel’s great national sin, and the charge, once again, is brought against the nation by Jews. But what evidence do they offer to back up this charge? The destruction of the Second Temple.

Ever since the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, pious Jews have asked the question, why? One Rabbi, Rabbi Ciner, put the dilemma this way, “The Talmud teaches that the First Temple was destroyed through our involvement in idolatry, incestuous relationships and murder. However, during the time of the Second Temple we were involved in Torah, mitzvos (fulfillment of commandments) and acts of kindness. Why was that destroyed?” The explanation Rabbi Ciner gives is found in the Talmud, “sin’as chinam (baseless hatred),” and he adds,”From this we derive that sin’as chinam is equal to idolatry, incestuous relationships and murder.”

The New Testament’s explanation was given by Jesus when He foresaw His rejection as he rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, “When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the day of your visitation.” What an awful scene He describes. No wonder He wept.

Some time ago I heard of an actual incident that occurred at one of those ecumenical dialogs between a group of Christians and Jews. Apparently things got quite heated, and after much bickering a Rabbi stepped forward with a solution. He said, “As I see it, the main difference between us is that you think the Messiah has been here before, and we don’t think He’s come yet. But we both believe he’s coming. So why don’t we wait until He gets here and ask Him if He’s been here before?” The tension was broken with laughter.

I love this story, but it begs for a follow-up question for the Rabbi, “And what if He says he’s been here before?” In my opinion, this is a question Israel needs to think about. If Messiah’s answer is, “Yes, I’ve been here before, I came unto my own and my own received me not,” then His answer would surely go a long way towards explaining the Jewish experience over the last 2000 years.

So what am I saying, that the Jews had it coming? God forbid! I’m just saying this; Israel has a covenant with God that speaks for itself, and in the light of this covenant there must surely be a consequence for rejecting the Messiah. We, on the other hand, gentile Christians, should not do what the church has done throughout the ages and appoint ourselves the executors of that covenant.

Now let me apply all of this to the subject of Christian Anti-Semitism. The apostles’ message to Israel in light of the rejection of Jesus can best be summarized by a statement made by Peter in a sermon to Jewish listeners, “Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Messiah appointed for you, who heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all tings about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.”

The answer of the Christian anti-Semite is a little different, “Therefore God is through with you. You are no longer Israel. God has appointed a New Israel made up of Gentiles in your place, and He’s going to give them all of the blessings of your covenant. You, on the other hand, will retain its curses. The blood of Jesus is on your hands and the hands of your children and you will exist throughout all generations, cursed, and the objects of divine wrath. What’s more, since you are Christ killers we are justified in whatever we do to you.” I may have left out a little of the bile, but I think you catch the drift.

In my judgment, Christian anti-Semitism did not come from the charges made in the New Testament, but from the “therefore” after the charges. I note that the apostles did not seek any retribution against the nation. In fact, as we will see, they urged just the opposite. But others have had a different attitude and a different agenda. And they have written a different conclusion after the “therefore.” And with their conclusion we have the beginnings of Christian anti-Semitism.

[i] Rabbi Ciner - From Rabbi Ciner’s Weekly Parsha

I have already pointed out that in the early conflict between Judaism and Christianity, the Jews drew first blood. Please understand that this is an observation only, and is not meant in anyway to justify Christian anti-Semitism. For example, I can also make the observation that native Americans drew first blood in their conflict with English settlers in the New World, but only a fool would use this observation to justify the subsequent treatment of the aboriginal population of the North American continent. In the case of Christianity, our subsequent treatment of the Jewish people is inexcusable even if every Jew in the world were involved in our persecution. After all, our Lord commanded us to love those who mistreat us and to pray for those who persecute us. Jesus Himself set the example in this when He forgave those who nailed Him to the cross.

The persecution of Christians that began in Jerusalem and Judea continued to a greater or lesser extent until the Jewish Church finally separated itself from the rest of Judaism by relocating in Pella rather than standing with their countrymen against the Romans. However, before they parted ways the large Jewish-Christian church in Jerusalem and Judea, and it’s leader, James, apparently managed to gain some measure of acceptance and respect within the broader Jewish community.

One of the best evidences of an unofficial accord between the Jewish Church and their fellow Jews is that when the High Priest, Ananus, executed James, the protest against his actions was raised not by Christians but by pious Jews whom Josephus calls, “The most equitable of the citizens.” He continues, “they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa] desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified.”

I say all of this to make this simple observation: in spite of much opposition and varying degrees of persecution at the hands of their fellow Jews we find no trace of anti-Semitism in the early Jewish Church. This should come as no surprise because these early Jewish believers clearly viewed themselves as Jews in every sense of the word.

We note, for example, James’ statement to Paul when he came to Jerusalem after his third missionary journey: “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law. “

But because of the Judean Church’s zeal for the Law he would add they were very uncomfortable with reports that were reaching them about Paul, “They have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children not walking according to the customs.”

It seems clear from this passage that while the Jewish Church accepted Gentile conversion, they were determined that Jewish believers not lose their Jewish identity. Paul for his part seemed to be in agreement with their desire to maintain their Jewish distinctives. We see this in the fact that he agreed with James that he should purify himself in the Temple to demonstrate that, “there is nothing to the things they have been told….but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.”

While there was no anti-Semitism in the Jewish Church, there is evidence that the same was not true among the Gentiles. This was, as we will see, especially true in the church of Rome. It seems that the church of Rome may have been the birthplace of this moral evil.

If I were to guess the place where Christian anti-Semitism began I would probably guess Alexandria, Egypt, because Alexandria was the hot-bed of pagan anti-Semitism. It was Alexandria that produced what we might call the first Judaphobic–or proto Anti-Semitic–writings.

Produced over a period of three centuries, the Judaphobic writers of Alexandria spread their doctrines throughout the Greco-Roman world. By the first century Alexandria boasted the largest Jewish population in the Roman world. But in spite of the fact that two-fifths of the city was Jewish, Alexandria’s home-grown Judaphobia had made it the most anti-Jewish city in the ancient world. Finally, in 38 AD, the hatred that had been fomenting in Alexandria for many years spilled over into anti-Jewish riots. As a result of these riots two delegations were sent to Rome. One of these groups– the one defending the pagans–was led by one of the leading Judaphobes of the age, a man by the name of Apion.

Apion has been called the first Titan of Anti-Semitism. He is well deserving of the title. Apion was one of those responsible for stirring up the hatred of the pagan population of Alexandria and once the riots started he helped fan the flames. Later, Apion was appointed the head of the delegation that was sent to the Emperor to formally present charges of disloyalty against the Jews of Alexandria (Philo was the head of the Jewish delegation).

Once in Rome, Apion decided to stay. There he opened a school, and there he propagated his ideas until his death in 45 AD.

In his school and in his writings Apion taught three great themes that would be picked up by the church and repeated down through the centuries: (1) He cast aspersions on the racial origins of the Jews (2) He questioned their patriotism and loyalty as citizens (3) He accused them of secretly practicing human sacrifice and cannibalism.

To put things in historical perspective, there were no Gentile Christians at the time all of these things were happening. At the time of the Alexandrian riots the conversion of the first gentile, Cornelius, was still about two years away. Acts tells us that Saul’s persecution (which had occured several years before these events) had resulted in the church being spread throughout Judea and Samaria, as far north as Phoenicia and Syria, and as far west as Cyprus. So Christianity was spreading, but it was still an exclusively Jewish institution. Its final split from Judaism was years away.

One would like to think that the Judaphobia of Alexandria was confined just to Egypt. Unfortunately it spread to Rome, the home of the second largest Jewish population in the Greco/Roman world. Unfortunately, long before a church was planted in Rome, proto anti-Semitism was there waiting for it. In time the Church of Rome would become its most formidable champion.

We know, for example, of Apollonius Molon. Apollonius was a famous Alexandrian rhetorician. He was the teacher of both Cicero and Julius Ceaser. He also has the distinction of being the first man to compose an entire work against the Jews. In it he charges them with misanthropy and atheism; “The worst among the barbarians, lacking any creative talent, they did nothing for the good of mankind, they do not believe in any god.”

The works of other anti-Jewish writers were also well known in Rome. For example, Damocritus had written that every seven years the Jews would capture a stranger, lead him to the Temple, offer him as a sacrifice, and cut him into small pieces. This charge would later be picked up by the church. Many Jews would lose their lives because of it.

Pagan Rome never became the hotbed of Judaphobia that Alexandria was. Generally speaking, the Romans were tolerant of the Jews and made special allowance for their distinctive religious practices. Most of the Emperors could not have cared less about them. Others, such as Hadrian, were openly hostile to them. Most were ambivalent.

But the upper classes were a different matter. Many leading Roman thinkers, such as Horace, Ovid, Nero’s advisor, Seneca, and the historian, Tacitus, were openly hostile to them. Seneca called them a “most wicked nation.” Tacitus wrote that they are, “sinister, shameful, and have survived only because of their perversity.”

This, then, was the environment that greeted the unknown Christians who planted the church in Rome; a church destined to become the most influential in all of Christendom (The later claim that the church of Rome was founded by Peter is really nothing more than the self-serving mythology of a church well infected with the spirit of Diotrephes).

Rome was certainly not Alexandria, but the seeds of the doctrines that would form the core of Christian anti-Semitism had already been planted; and, as we will see, by the time the Apostle Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans they had begun to germinate in the Roman church.

“Deliberations in Jerusalem, Riots in Rome”

No one knows when the church of Rome was started or the circumstances of its founding. Later Catholic claims that Peter founded the church are clearly apocryphal. Peter was most likely still in Judea when the church was planted.

Rome had the second largest Jewish population in the world at the time the church began on the day of Pentecost. And Acts 2:10 tells us that pilgrims from Rome were among those who heard the first Christian sermon on the day of Pentecost. It seems probable that the gospel made its way to Rome through these pilgrims. Those who heard and rejected the message would nevertheless have a story to tell when they returned home. If there were believers among them, then their presence is perhaps the best explanation for founding of the Church of Rome. And if these returning pilgrims are indeed the ones responsible for the founding of the church, then the Church of Rome can at least claim a direct line to Peter through them since he preached the sermon that resulted in their conversion on the Day of Pentecost.

It would also be ironic in light of its later history if the Church of Rome was founded by Jews. But given the origins of the Christian faith, Christian anti-Semitism is an ongoing irony.

Like all of the churches of the first decade of the Christian era, the Church of Rome would have been a Jewish church. Even a cursory reading of the first 15 chapters of the book of Acts will reveal that the first Christians were Jewish men and women who viewed the church as an exclusive Jewish institution. All the churches they started until the conversion of Cornelius were exclusively Jewish; and they were incredulous when they heard that Peter had baptized the first Gentile converts.

In Acts we learn that the first persecution resulted in many of the Jewish believers in Jerusalem fleeing to places as far away as Cyprus, Cyrene, and Antioch. But Luke tells us they were careful to preach the gospel only to their fellow Jews. But after a church had been planted in Antioch something happened that was destined to change the church forever. It was in Antioch that Jewish believers began to proclaim the gospel to their Gentile neighbors. The response was phenomenal. Multitudes came to faith. Interestingly, it was the believers of this now racially diverse church who were first called Christians.

We do not know when the same thing began to happen in Rome, but by the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, it, like Antioch, had become a racially mixed church. Though I don’t know when the Roman outreach to the Gentiles began, I have an educated guess. I think it probably started somewhere around the year 49 AD.

49 AD was an important year in the history of Christianity. It was the year of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15). The leader of the church did not come together to determine whether or not the church was the New Israel, but to decide whether or not Gentiles should be required to become members of Old Israel. The thing that brought events to a head was the conversion of Gentiles as Gentiles, both in Antioch (where the controversy first flared) and in the cities Paul and Barnabas evangelized during their first missionary journey.

In reading Luke’s account of Paul’s first missionary journey we discover that the Jewish Christians in Judea were not the only ones upset about the conversion of the Gentiles. We don’t normally think of Judaism as a missionary religion, and yet in the formative days of the church Judaism competed openly with the church for Gentile converts. The Jewish literature on anti-Semitism takes note of this rivalry and suggests that this rivalry between the two faiths that may have been partly responsible for the growth of Christian anti-Semitism. There may be something to this observation, but in the early years this rivalry led to persecution of the weaker of the two faiths, Christianity.

In every stop during the first missionary journey Paul’s success at converting Gentiles led to Jewish jealousy, hostility, and in several cases, violence. In every city Paul began his ministry in the local synagogue, preaching primarily to Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles (today we would call them, seekers). Invariably, when the Gentiles responded to the gospel - and invited their friends to come and see - there was hostility from the Jewish community.

I want to suggest that the problem the Jews of Asia Minor had with Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles was not that the was converting them. They too wanted to convert the Gentiles. Nor was the claim that Jesus was the Messiah a problem. Perhaps he was. There was some openness to this idea. The problem the Jewish establishment had with Paul’s ministry was that he was converting Gentiles without requiring them to become Jews first. To teach that Jesus was the Messiah was one thing–a Jew could teach this and still be a Jew–but to teach that Gentiles could be acceptable to God without submitting to circumcision and without being taught to observe the Law….well, that was another thing entirely.

The council of 49 AD settled the matter among believing Jews (Gentile converts observed the deliberations, but they did not participate). Some people mistakenly think that the Jerusalem council set aside the law for all Christians, but a careful reading shows that this was not the case. The decision of the apostles and elders was that there would be two tracks within the church, one for Jews another for Gentiles. The Gentiles would not be required to observe the Law, but Jewish believers would continue to do so.

Meanwhile the Jews in Rome were rioting. Tacitus informs us that this was not an isolated event. They had apparently done this on more than one occasion. The source of this rioting was “one Chrestus.” Most take this as a reference to Christ, and the majority of historians believe that there was rioting in Rome, as there had been in other cities, between the Jews who believed in Jesus and those who did not.

The Emperor Claudius finally put an end to the fighting by expelling the Jews from Rome. This expulsion is mentioned by Tacitus, Suetonius, and the 5^th century Christian historian, Orosius. We also have confirmation of it in the book of Acts. It was this expulsion of Jews that brought Aquila and Priscilla to Corinth. Assuming that the traditional understanding of expulsion of the Jews from Rome is the correct one, the relevance to the development of Christian anti-Semitism is obvious. First of all, there would have been resentment on the part of many in the church because the Jewish community had made themselves enemies of the gospel. There would also have been resentment because the expulsion would have robbed the Church of Rome of its Jewish leadership and members.

The loss of individuals of the quality of Aquila and Priscilla would have been an enormous blow to any church; but more importantly for our purposes, at the same moment in which the church in Jerusalem was deciding what to do with Gentile converts, the Church of Rome was becoming a church of Gentile converts.  Depending on how thorough the expulsion was, the Church of Rome may have been - at least for a few years - the only completely Gentile church in the world.

For the record, the results would have been the same even if the rioting among the Jews was not over Jesus. Whatever the cause, Claudius’ actions created the world’s first Gentile church in the most important city in the world, Rome. And, if the traditional view of the cause of the rioting and expulsion is correct, it would have been a Gentile church with a great deal of anger against the unbelieving Jews who they would have viewed–I believe correctly–as the cause of the problem. Add in the fact that Alexandrian anti-Jewish propaganda was already thriving in the city, and you have the ingredients for the birth of Christian anti-Semitism. The fact that it first surfaced there can be seen in Paul’s response to it in the 9^th, 10^th, and 11^th chapters of Romans.

Paul’s epistle to the Church in Rome was written somewhere around the year 57 AD, eight years after Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. All we know about the Church in Rome at the time is that which can be gleaned from Paul’s epistle to the Romans, however, there is one thing we know; after the death of Claudius the Jewish community reestablished itself in Rome. We also know that at least some Jewish believers returned as well.  We know this because Paul sent his greetings to Prisca and Aquila (Romans 16:3-5). 

In his Survey o f the New Testament, Robert Gundry writes that “Some scholars maintain that the Roman church consisted mainly of Jewish Christians. They argue that the emphasis on the Jewish nation in chapters 9-11, the appeal to the example of Abraham, the quotations of the Old Testament, and the passages in which Paul appears to be arguing against Jewish objections imply a Jewish congregation.”[i] I disagree.

The above arguments lend themselves to other explanations, and there indications in the text that Paul was writing to a predominantly Gentile church. For example in Romans 1:13, Paul speaks of his desire to minister in Rome so that he “may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles” (Emphasis added). Also - and I consider this very important for the argument I am going to be making - In Romans 11, a chapter in which Paul had much to say about the nation Israel, he said, “But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles” (Romans 11:13a). Then, as he concluded his letter, he wrote, “I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given to me from God, to be a minister of God to the Gentiles….” (Romans 15:15-16).

Taking these verses and others into account I think it is very likely the church in Rome - having become a Gentile church when Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome - continued to be a gentile church even after some Jewish believers returned to the city.

I also see evidence that once they returned to Rome the conflict between the Jewish community and the church - minus the riots - took up right where it had left off.  For example, in Romans 11:28a Paul writes, “From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for you sake…” 

I also think the passages that some scholars use to infer that the church was predominantly Jewish are better explained as Paul’s apologetic, his detailed answers to Jewish objections to the gospel.  Obviously, such an apologetic would be very useful to a church embroiled in competition with the Jewish community for Gentile converts. Perhaps it was this competition, or maybe it was the open opposition of the Jews to the gospel, that led to the development of certain ideas and teachings which would later become foundation stones of Christian anti-Semitism.  Paul certainly seems to be aware of these dangerous ideas - perhaps Aquila and Prisca informed him - since rebuking and refuting them seems to have been a major part of his agenda in writing the epistle to the Romans.

The first indication we have of proto anti-Semitism in the Church at Rome is found in Romans 3:3. Here Paul asks and then answers the rhetorical question, “What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?”  The fact that Paul asked this question is significant. Certainly, the Jewish community wasn’t asking it. They were quite confident in their covenant relationship with God. So who was saying Jewish unbelief would cause God to be unfaithful? The obvious answer is that that there were those in the church in Rome who were teaching this doctrine.

I’m sure these Christians were not actually accusing God of infidelity; but Paul recognized that no matter how nicely it is stated, if someone says that Jewish unbelief negates the promises God made to  Israel, then they are calling the faithfulness of God into question.

The same is true today. Christian anti-Semites have always said that Jewish unbelief cancels the covenant relationship between the actual sons of Israel and God, and it is interesting that we find this foundational doctrine present in Rome in 57 AD. I think it’s also important to note that Paul completely rejected it in the strongest possible language (Note, Paul’s argument is the same argument I make in another post, An Argument with Myself About Amillennialim).

But the third chapter of Romans is not the only place in which we find the foundation stones upon which full-blown anti-Semitism would later be built. However, it is important to note that the “apostle to the Gentiles,” Paul, rejected all of these ideas.  Sadly, like so many other Pauline doctrines - such as justification by faith - the church soon abandoned his teaching on this subject too.

Originally posted in March, 2007

There has been some talk recently about Barak Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, and his friend, spiritual mentor and pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In a recent article, Ed Lasky, of The American Thinker raised the issue of anti-Semitism. He pointed out that Obama has acknowledged his pastor’s influence on him.

As a pastor I have no problem with this…as long as the pastor’s influence in beneficial. Unfortunately there are questions concerning the wholesomeness of Rev. Wright’s influence. Ed Lasky points out that Rev. Wright is committed to an Afro-centric view of Christianity,” which emphasizes, “a Black Work Ethic, commitment to a Black Value System, and an allegiance to all Black Leadership that follows the Black Value System.” The concern here is that “anti-Semitism…is…often associated with other leaders and groups that have emphasized black separatism and empowerment (think Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton).”

Lasky concludes that “some qualms might be warranted, particularly given some of the actions and statements of [Rev. Wright].”It is also troubling that “Pastor Wright is…a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, and in 1984 traveled with him to visit Col. Muammar al-Gadaffi.” Further concern is raised by the fact that Rev. Wright is a proponent of liberation theology, and, as Lasky points out, “The language of liberation all too often veers off into anti-Jewish rants.”

I am in complete agreement with Lasky. But the example he cites to illustrate his point completely misses the mark. He refers to “one of the founders of the movement, Gustavo Gutierrez,” and his stated position “that the infidelities of the Jewish people made the Old Covenant [between the Jews and God] invalid.”

I agree that Gutierrez’s view is anti-Semitic. But Lasky is apparently unaware of that fact that this view is actually quite orthodox. This pernicious teaching is sometimes referred to as replacement theology because it asserts that Israel has been replaced by the church. It lies at the heart of an ancient system of Christian eschatology known as Amillennialism. Far from being an aberration unique to liberation theology, Amillennialism has been embraced by the church since the third century. Even today the majority of those who call themselves Christians – Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant — hold to Amillennialism or some variant of it such as Postmillennialism.

Amillennialism teaches that the covenant between God and the Jewish people has indeed been invalidated (God got around His obligation to keep the covenant to the physical descendants of Israel by declaring the church, “The New Israel.”) Having replaced the old Israel with the church, God then transferred the blessings of the covenant to the New Israel (A term, by the way, that occurs nowhere in the New Testament). But what about the old Israel? Well, having expropriated the blessings of their covenant, the church has been very generous and has allowed the Jewish people to retain the curses.