The first - and most controversial - ministry gift of Ephesians 4.

This article is part of a series – click here for previous instalments.

“It was Christ who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph 4:11-13, emphasis added)

While there is much that we can read in the New Testament about the original apostles appointed by Jesus, their calling and the role they fulfilled in the burgeoning Church, there is a divergence of opinion today on whether or not there are, or ever can be, modern-day apostles.

It can be a very divisive subject – but the one thing that all should be agreed on regardless is that the role of an apostle, as it was understood in the Early Church, can and should be carried on in the Church today – a role which, incidentally, has no equivalent in the secular world!

Who WERE the Apostles?

Christ appointed 12 of his disciples to be apostles and named them in Matthew 10 and Luke 6. Following the defection of Judas Iscariot and the ascension of Jesus into Heaven, the remaining 11 (Peter, John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas son of James) were praying.

They felt the importance of replacing Judas, who had betrayed Jesus, with “one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:21-22). There were two nominations - Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. After prayer they cast lots; “the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26).

There is a divergence of opinion today on whether or not there can be modern-day apostles.

The Apostles mentioned in the New Testament all had three things in common – they had to have been personally called by Christ, been taught by him directly for several years, and seen him alive after his resurrection (Acts 1:17, 22, 25).

Paul was the one exception, and he had to make a strong case for his inclusion as he had not been one of the disciples at the time of Jesus’ death. In fact, he had been the opposite – distinctively anti-Jesus - yet he too was offered and accepted a specific God-given task.

Ananias had been told by the Lord to seek out Paul after his Damascus experience, “for this man [Paul] is a chosen vessel to me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:15-16). Paul’s qualifications were that he had seen the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ and witnessed him perform miracles, and that he had also seen the imparting of the Holy Spirit to baptised believers. He describes himself in Galatians 1:1: “Paul, an apostle - sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead”.

Commissioning

There are others described as ‘apostles’ in the New Testament: Barnabas became an apostle (Acts 14:14) of the congregation of Antioch, Syria. Other men also are referred to as ‘apostles of congregations’ in the sense that they were sent forth by such congregations to represent them. James the brother of Jesus was commissioned to become a leader among the apostles in Jerusalem, but he still met the same requirements placed upon Paul.

Today, commissioning and the laying on of hands carries on the apostolic succession of the Pope in Roman Catholic churches, although most denominations also commission members they consider to have the right qualifications to other, different tasks and many also lay on hands to confirm this.

The first Apostles were all personally called by Christ, taught by him directly and saw him alive after his resurrection.

The Meaning of ‘Apostle’

The word ‘apostle’ is taken from the Greek word apostolos meaning simply ‘sent forth (or of)’ or ‘one who is sent on a mission’. But this does not mean that all who receive a calling from God and are sent forth to share the Good News with those who have not heard it, or who have had hands laid on them, or who are commissioned to plant churches, or for any other reason, are to be called apostles today.

Those who are sent out can often also be called evangelists or teachers, but ‘apostle’ gives the impression of having been given the authority to break new ground – and all are called to some kind of leadership. Apostles are often linked with prophets in partnership; they are seen to need each other.

This particular passage in Ephesians 4 ensures that the five roles designated are part of a team – all of whom are needed in our churches today – and usually in the leadership. This is essentially a team of people called by Christ himself “to equip his people for works of service”. They are not a hierarchy leading from the top – but a group who, having had special privileges, are then also given a special commission to equip and enable others so that they can be on the front line.

The end result is “so that the body of Christ may be built up” – there can be no role for individuals here who do not also have right relationships with others in the areas within which they operate.

Passing on the Baton

Jesus’ final commission to the original apostles just before his ascension to his Father was to “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them everything I have commanded you” (Matt 28:19-20).

This carried with it the assumption that the continuance of the true faith was in their hands. They were responsible for ensuring that the faith remained true to all who heard it so that the baton could be passed on to succeeding generations. They needed the Holy Spirit to do this and their fruit would be that others followed Jesus.

‘Apostle’ gives the impression of someone given the authority to break new ground.

In practice, the first apostles continued to meet together in Jerusalem, ministering to the large number of disciples there, which included many Jews. They acted as a focal co-ordinating and consulting point for the spreading Church, remaining linked throughout Paul’s ministry and beyond.

There are glimpses in Paul’s letters of their continuing role and their relationships with the expanding Church, although it was Philip who first took the Gospel to the Samaritans and Paul who then took it farther afield, with Thomas reputed to have taken the Good News to India. By the time of the first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, there was no longer a Christian representation of the Jewish section of the Church and “building up in unity” had become a major issue.

In order for the baton to be passed on from one generation to another successfully, the wider apostolic role is also definitely still needed – but it is one that is sorely missed in the Church today.

If you have any other comments to add about apostles and their role – past and present - please add them below.

Clifford Denton surveys the many prominent leaders of the early Church who contributed to the development of anti-Jewish attitudes and beliefs amongst Christians.

Over the last few instalments of this study we have been considering carefully the gradual separation of the Christian Church from its Hebraic foundations, and its detachment from Israel and the Jewish people. We have also noted the parallel emergence of anti-Semitism.

In this section we move on to reflect on the position of some of the more prominent 'Fathers' of the Christian Church and to demonstrate how Replacement Theology became entrenched in the Gentile branch of the Church in the early centuries of the Common Era.

Fathers of the Church

By the 'Church Fathers', we generally mean the prominent Christian leaders who framed the early theology of the Church and whose influence has continued to this day. Of course, the true 'father of the Church' in human terms is Abraham (Rom 4:16). As Dr Wilson writes in the preface of Our Father Abraham:

...Our Father Abraham, is a biblical expression (see Luke 1:73; John 8:53; Acts 7:2; etc.) that epitomizes the deep spiritual link every Christian has with the Jewish people...gentile Christians are grafted by faith into Israel (Romans 11:17-24), and through this faith commitment come to know Israel's father as their father too. Elsewhere Paul says that "those who believe are children of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7); indeed, through faith, "Abraham is the father of us all" (Rom. 4:16). (pxvi)

The Apostle Paul, in another application of the idea of fatherhood, talks of being a father to those in his care. He referred to Timothy as "my own son in the faith" (1 Tim 1:2) and in writing to the Corinthians, said:

For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (1 Cor 4:15)

So, in the foundational sense Abraham is seen as the father of the faithful, and in a general sense Paul and the apostles saw themselves in a fatherly role to those who became believers.

Biblical Fatherhood

Fatherhood is a biblical principle. After the time of Paul and the apostles there arose a number of new leaders from the Gentile world, from the second century on, who approached the Bible with a Greek philosophical viewpoint and who wrote about and debated the scriptures in this context. Along with a considerable amount of truth, these men also introduced errors which were passed on to later generations, and so they were not fathers in the purer sense of the word as applied to Abraham and Paul.

As the Church developed in the Gentile world, later leaders drew much reference from these men and so they came to be called the 'Early Church Fathers'. Even today there is much study of and respect for what was written by these philosophers. However, if we study their contribution to the thinking of the Church we detect a further step in the separation of the Church from its Hebraic foundations.

Alongside considerable truth, the teaching of the so-called 'Early Church Fathers' also introduced errors and assumptions into the Church which have been passed down the generations.

Whereas Paul would be a father to his own converts and point them back to the faith of Abraham fulfilled in Jesus, looking back on the so-called 'Church Fathers' is to look back on teaching that already has inbuilt assumptions that separate us from the teaching of Paul and the early apostles.

Examples

We can illustrate this point by drawing on examples from the writings of these 'Early Church Fathers'. There is a useful section in Dr Richard Booker's book, No Longer Strangers (Sound of the Trumpet, 2002), from which we quote (pp105-109):

Some of the most influential of the Gentile leaders of the early church had little regard for or understanding of Jews. They were Greek philosophers who attempted to merge Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. Due to the Greek influence in their lives and the lack of a Hebraic perspective of the Bible, many of the new Christian leaders were anti-Semitic. They interpreted the Bible through the eyes of Plato more than through the eyes of Moses and Jesus...

These "Christian Fathers" expressed their hatred of the Jews through their speeches and writings, which laid the foundation for the anti-Semitic policies at the very beginning of the Gentile-led, Christian church...

Booker describes some early Church leaders as 'Greek philosophers' who sought to merge Greek thinking with the scriptures.

Ignatius

Booker continues by referring to Ignatius, second-century bishop of Antioch:

[Ignatius] wrote a letter called the Epistle to the Philippians. He said that anyone who celebrated Passover with the Jews, or received emblems of the Jewish feast, was a partaker with those who killed the Lord and His apostles. This is just the opposite of Paul's instructions to Gentile believers in Corinth to "keep the feast" (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)... (p109)

From the introduction to Ignatius's Epistle to the Philippians we read the following:

Being mindful of your love and of your zeal in Christ, which ye have manifested towards us, we thought it fitting to write to you, who display such a godly and spiritual love to the brethren, to put you in remembrance of your Christian course...

This has the same ring to it as the introductions to some of Paul's letters, giving a sense that this writer, who lived much closer to the time of Paul than we do, may have had a position of authority close to that of Paul. After the introduction he goes on to discuss the revelation of Christ and the works of Satan in an acceptable manner. Yet in his conclusion he writes:

Do not lightly esteem the festivals. Despise not the period of forty days, for it comprises an imitation of the conduct of the Lord. After the week of the passion, do not neglect to fast on the fourth and sixth days, distributing at the same time of thine abundance to the poor. If any one fasts on the Lord's Day or on the Sabbath, except on the paschal Sabbath, he is a murderer of Christ...If any one celebrates the Passover along with the Jews, or receives he emblems of their feast, he is a partaker with those that killed the Lord and His apostles. [emphasis added]

This shows that Ignatius wrote against the Jews and the biblical feasts and referred to new practices that were emerging in the Church even in these early days.

Barnabus

Barnabus is the assumed name of the writer of The Epistle of Barnabus. He must not be mistaken for the Barnabus spoken of in Scripture, who was a friend of Paul the apostle. Dr Booker writes:

An influential letter written in the same time period was the Epistle of Barnabus. The writer said that the Jews no longer had a covenant with God and that it was a sin to say they did. This is totally contradictory to the Bible, which says God's covenant with Abraham is everlasting (Genesis 17:7-8). [emphasis added]

The letter is written in several chapters, from which we will quote briefly. The reference in Chapter 3 (entitled 'The Fasts of the Jews are not true fasts, nor acceptable to God') is to Isaiah 58:

He says then to them concerning these things, "Why do ye fast to Me as on this day, saith the Lord, that your voice shall not be heard with a cry? I have not chosen this fast saith the Lord...To us He saith, "Behold, this is the fast that I have chosen, saith the Lord, not that a man should humble his soul, but that he should loose every band of iniquity...For He revealed these things beforehand, that we should not rush forward as rash acceptors of their laws.

From Chapter 11 – 'The False and True Sabbath':

...He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure." Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, namely this, when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.

Justin Martyr

From his examples, Dr Booker continues:

Justin Martyr, in the second century, claimed God's covenant with the Jews was no longer valid and that the Church had replaced the Jews in God's redemptive plan. This is contrary to Romans 11.

Last week we quoted extensively from The Dialogue with Trypho. We quote again briefly here:

...we do not trust through Moses or through the law; for then we would do the same as yourselves...For the law promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this is for all universally. Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ – has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandments, no ordinance...

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...For none of you, I suppose, will venture to say that God neither did nor does foresee the events, which are future, nor foreordained his deserts for each one. Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him; and now you reject those who hope in Him, and in Him who sent Him – God the Almighty and Maker of all things – cursing in your synagogues those who believe in Christ...

For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time. And hence you ought to understand that the gifts formerly among your nation have been transferred to us. [emphasis added]

Irenaeus

Richard Booker continues:

Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyon in the second century He wrote that the Jews were disinherited from the grace of God. But the apostle Paul wrote that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). [emphasis added]

In Against Heresies, Irenaeus himself writes:

He is therefore one and the same God, who called Abraham and gave him the promise. But He is the Creator, who does also through Christ prepare lights in the world, namely those who believe from among the Gentiles...Therefore have the Jews departed from God, in not receiving His Word, but imagining that they could know the Father by Himself, without the Word, that is, without the Son; they being ignorant of that God who spake in human shape to Abraham, and again to Moses, saying, "I have surely seen the affliction of My people in Egypt, and have come down to deliver them.

John Chrysostom

Of fourth-century Antioch bishop John Chrysostom, Booker writes:

The Christian leader who expressed his hate for the Jews more than any other was John Chrysostom...He said there could never be forgiveness for the Jews and that God had always hated them. He taught it was the "Christian duty" to hate the Jew. He said the Jews were the assassins of Christ and worshippers of the devil.

In one of his murderous sermons, Chrysostom declared, "The synagogue is worse than a brothel...It is the den of scoundrels...the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults...a place of meting for the assassins of Christ...a house worse than a drinking shop...a den of thieves; a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and abyss of perdition...As for me, I hate the synagogue...I hate the Jews for the same reason." (p107, taken from Malcolm Hay, The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism, Liberty Press, 1981, pps27-28) [emphases added]

Other Prominent Writers

Continuing, Dr Booker highlights a number of other 'Church Fathers' and their writings.¹ We read from No Longer Strangers:

Clement of Alexandria in the second century emphasized Greek philosophy rather than the Hebrew Scriptures as the means God gave the Gentiles to lead them to Jesus...

Origen, in the second and third centuries accused the Jews of plotting to kill Christians...

Hyppolytus was a bishop in Rome in the second and third centuries. He said that the Jews were condemned to perpetual slavery because they killed the Son of God...

Tertullian was another important Christian teacher and writer in the second and third centuries. He blamed the entire Jewish race for the death of Jesus. This is interesting, since most of the Jews were scattered among the Gentiles when Jesus was crucified. They had not even heard of Jesus. Furthermore, as we earlier learned, many thousands of Jews acknowledged Jesus as Messiah...

Eusebius lived in the third and fourth centuries. He wrote the history of the church for the first three centuries. He taught that the promises of God in the Hebrew Scriptures were for the Christians and the curses were for the Jews. He declared that the Church was the "true Israel of God" that had replaced literal Israel in God's covenants...

Jerome lived in the fourth and fifth centuries. His great contribution was to translate the Scriptures into Latin. He claimed that the Jews were incapable of understanding the Bible and that they should be severely punished unless they confess the "true faith." It is hard to imagine such statements coming from Christian leaders. May God forgive us for such hatred. [emphases added]

Summary

Booker usefully summarises the basic argument being used by these influential writers:

The basic concept behind all these statements was that the Jews as an entire race of people killed Christ. Therefore, they lost their place in God's covenant and have since been replaced by the Church. The Church should persecute the Jews show the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. However, Christendom should not totally destroy the Jews because some need to be left as a witness that they are suffering because they rejected Christ. This is a long way from Jesus' statement on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do" (Luke 23:34)

For our series, the quotes used in this article illustrate two things.

• The continued break of the Christian Church from its Hebraic foundations even as early as the second century.
• How the respected Gentile 'Fathers of the Christian Church' built a new foundation of Christian theology on which the Church was to build in succeeding generations even until the present day.
  • This theology was tainted with Greek philosophical influence and contributed to both replacement theology and anti-Semitism.
  • It also framed the documenting of Christian history, as the example of early Church historian Eusebius shows.

For Reflection and Comment

What can we do to 'de-Greece the Church' of any remaining wrong theological bias?

Next time: Anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages.

References

1 For reference, many of these quotations can be followed up in the vast series of books, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (T&T Clark/Eerdmans 1993).

Clifford Denton looks at how early Christians were increasingly excluded from Jewish community and religious life.

The early distancing of Christians from the Jewish community was eventually to lead to a complete separation. It was, however, a process more than a single event. It began with theological differences within the Jewish community - next came exclusion from the synagogues.

The Process

When the early followers of Jesus boldly proclaimed the Gospel message, and the community of believers in Jesus the Messiah was growing in number, there were inevitable reactions in the Jewish community. One of the reactions was that believers were not welcomed in the Synagogues, being considered heretics. In this study we will consider the degree to which this contributed to the parting of the ways between Church and Synagogue in the early days of Christianity. We propose that though the separation began in the first century AD, it was the beginning of a gradual process rather than of that of a sudden break.

Last week, we reviewed how theological differences emerged when the Gospel message was preached in Jerusalem and then moved progressively outwards to the whole world. The writings of the New Testament contain the foundational beliefs that drew attention to the fact that a notable new movement was beginning. This new movement brought an interpretation of the Tanakh (Old Testament) that was founded on the belief that Yeshua (Jesus) is the expected Messiah. In addition, other writings indicate that a summary of the beliefs of the early Christian Church was in circulation in the first century AD. This, as well as the witness of the growing community of believers in Jesus, provoked reaction from the Jewish community.

However, in the eyes of the leaders of the Synagogues, this was not going to be a theological debate alone, but the emergence of a new branch of Judaism. In their eyes, an heretical movement was beginning that had to be stopped, so the Synagogues themselves took steps to separate from the new movement. There is no doubt about this. The subject for discussion, however, is the rate at which the action of the Synagogues, in cutting themselves off from the perceived heresy, took place.

In the eyes of Synagogue leaders, Christianity was an heretical movement that had to be stopped. So they took steps to separate themselves from it.

Synagogue Traditions

The root meaning of Synagogue is 'meeting place'. Israel, from its earliest days, was a community of families with communal practices of studying, worshipping, sharing meals and meeting together in various ways, interpreting Torah for the good of the community. Each person was a member of the community and there were also rules for exclusion. Indeed, exclusion for certain reasons was a Biblical principle. In Deuteronomy 23 we have some of the conditions:

He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the Lord. One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord. An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord forever... (Deut 23:1-3ff)

Biblical Injunctions

The strongest reason for exclusion from the community was idolatry and the worship of false gods:

And I will set your bounds from the Red Sea to the sea, Philistia, and from the desert to the River. For I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you. You shall make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against Me. For if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you. (Ex 23:31-33)

The level of exclusion ranged from a lower degree ban (nidduy) to a complete excommunication (herem). In its severest form the life of a person could be taken for bringing uncleanness or guilt into the community, such as with the sin of Achan:

Then Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, the silver, the garment, the wedge of gold, his sons, his daughters, his oxen, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and all that he had, and they brought them to the Valley of Achor. And Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? The Lord will trouble you this day." So all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones. Then they raised over him a great heap of stones, still there to this day. So the Lord turned from the fierceness of His anger. Therefore the name of that place has been called the Valley of Achor to this day. (Josh 7:24-26)

Later Interpretation

As the community of Israel formed its traditions from its early days, and later, when the community meeting place was centred on a building called the Synagogue, the rules for inclusion and exclusion from the community were developed (the timescale of this development has been a matter of interpretation of the evidence - not an easy matter as much of the traditions were oral traditions and their codification and development was gradual).

Nevertheless, it is clear that the leaders of Israel sought to interpret the injunctions of Torah to keep its community free of sin and, particularly, free of false gods. The history of Israel in the days of the Kings and of the Prophets shows the immensity of this task, as the nation declined and rose again depending on their ability to remain devoted to the One True God.

John's Gospel

John's Gospel gives evidence that the followers of Jesus were watched carefully and, in the context of tradition, judgments were made as to whether a movement was arising that was heretical and which should result in the ban or excommunication from the Synagogues.

There is the example of the man who was born blind.

But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight. And they asked them, saying, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?" His parents answered them and said, "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but by what means he now sees we do not know, or who opened his eyes we do not know. He is of age; ask him. He will speak for himself. His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that He was Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue. (John 19:18-23)

Jesus himself came under scrutiny, as could be expected of a new Rabbi.

But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?" Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them." These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him. Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. (John 12:37-42)

And Jesus warned that his followers would find opposition from the other sects of the Jewish community.

These things I have spoken to you, that you should not be made to stumble. They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me. But these things I have told you, that when the time comes, you may remember that I told you of them. And these things I did not say to you at the beginning, because I was with you. (John 16:1-4)

Exclusion from the Synagogue was based on the desire to keep heresy out of the community and preserve the purity of the people, as God himself had commanded. The dramatic ministry of Jesus was bound to cause response from the Jewish leaders, as also was the ministry of the Apostles. The context was a nation that expected to judge new movements arising from within its community. We can understand that this was inevitable whilst also mourning the fact that error was made when the disciples of Jesus were misjudged.

Israel was a nation that expected to judge new movements arising within it, according to a desire to keep heresy out of the community and preserve the purity of the people, as God himself had commanded.

The Prayer Book

One of the traditions of the Synagogue was the set patterns of worship. Today we have the fully codified Prayer Book, and this is the result of many years of development. The Prayer Book is a useful resource for Christians to use in studying the background considered here.

One of the most significant points of codification was at Javneh, in the north of Israel, around AD 90, when Rabbi Gamaliel II and his colleagues gathered together to work to preserve the purity of Torah. It is possible that the Amidah was modified at this time. The Amidah is the 'standing prayer' that contained 18 benedictions (Shemoneh-Esreh). These benedictions were blessings for Israel. A 19th addition was made to this at some time, possibly at Javneh. It became the twelth in the sequence and became known as the Birkat ha-Minim – the Benediction concerning the heretics. Though this was included in the Benedictions – blessings - it was in fact a curse. It was a curse on heretics so that Israel might retain its blessings from God.

Around AD 90, the Amidah benedictions – blessings for Israel – were modified to include a curse on heretics, that Israel might retain its blessings from God.

The Curse against Heretics

Thus the prescribed daily benedictions, at some point (probably at Javneh), contained this curse on heretics. Links can be found with the Gospel of John and, at some point in the development of the curse, specific mention of the Notzrim (Nazarenes, ie Christians) was made. When Christians were considered to be an heretical sect, the curse would be directed at them. The question is, how soon did this happen?

In the section on Amidah in Volume 2 of Encyclopedia Judaica, it says of the 12th Benediction that it:

...asks God to destroy the malshinim ("slanderers" or "informers"), all His enemies, and to shatter the "kingdom of arrogance". The text of this benediction, called in the Talmud Birkat ha-Minim ("Benediction Concerning Heretics"), underwent many changes. It concludes with Barukh..shover oyeyim u-makhni'a zedim ("Blessed...Who breakest the enemies and humblest the arrogant")

On the development of Amidah we read (p839):

Fixed community prayers gradually came into being in the Second Temple period. People would meet for joint prayers and, in the course of time, "orders of prayer" developed. At first, these differed widely from group to group. There is, however, no reason to assume that the orders of prayer were instituted at any given time by a central authority. It is almost certain that by the end of the Temple period the 18 benedictions of the weekly Amidah had become the general custom. However, their exact sequence and the content of the individual benedictions probably still varied...

There is explicit testimony that the seven benedictions for Sabbaths and the festivals and the nine for Rosh Ha-Shanah were accepted as the norm by the schools of Hillel and Shammai (Tosef. Ber 3:13). Soon after the destruction of the Temple, the Amidah was "edited" finally in Jabneh, by Rabban Gamaliel II and his colleagues. Even then, only the order, general content, and benediction formula were standardized; the actual wording was left to be formulated by the individual worshipper or reader. Attempts to reconstruct the "original" text of the Amidah or to ascertain the date when each section was "composed" are pointless, especially in view of the ruling that benedictions were not to be written down (Tosef., Shab. 13:4...)

Summary of a Complex Issue

In order to understand our present position, it is important to note the details of this significant contribution to the separation of Jesus' disciples from the Synagogue. It was no small thing and could be justified on biblical grounds.

In summary, a curse against heretics was added to the daily prayers of the Synagogues, in the tradition of the Jewish community always being vigilant to keep itself from following false teaching and false gods. This curse has been directed at Christians, but it is also directed at other supposed heretics.

The question still remains as to whether this antagonism, strongly emanating from the Synagogues, was so strong against Christians as to cause a separation with Judaism. Did it spark a dramatic split, or contribute to a gradual one? This is an important question in relation to the separation of the Christian Church from its Jewish roots. We would be wise to see their separation as gradual rather than sudden – if we are to understand that other factors were at work too. The blame is not all at the door of the Synagogue.

Overview

If we start with the premise that the exclusion of early Christians from the Jewish community was engineered mainly by the Synagogue leaders, then it would have been hard for a follower of Jesus to belong to the Jewish community. When we read the Gospel accounts in the light of this view, we may deduce that the Jewish leaders had already established a strong principle of exclusion, even at the time of Jesus. If one also assumes that the 12th Benediction of the Amidah was specifically directed at the Christians, then the idea may be cultivated that Christianity had no hope of remaining a branch of Judaism, and the fault lay mainly with the Jews.

If, on the other hand, one considers that the 12th Benediction was of a more general nature and against all forms of heresy, and that some Synagogues (not all), perhaps much later, chose to include Christians as a specific example of what they saw as heretics, then the picture at the time of Jesus and the Apostles is much different. In this case we would picture the Jewish leaders, as was usual, investigating a new Rabbinic movement with the possibility of exclusion but not yet a certainty. This is the view taken by Dr Wilson in Our Father Abraham, seeking to put the Jewish response to the growth of Christianity in its proper perspective, seeing the exclusion principle as contributing gradually, but alongside other factors, to separating the Christian Church from its roots. In his conclusion he writes (p72):

It appears that the expression "to put out of the synagogue" must be taken in an informal rather than a formal sense. Perhaps Jesus alluded to this action when he warned that his disciples would be "beaten in synagogues" (Mark 13:9; cf. Acts 5:40). In any case, since there is little collaborative textual evidence that formal excommunication was practiced during this formative period of the Church, aposynagogos may have reference to a kind of informal ostracism.

Hare may be correct in suggesting that this form of pressure by public censure was likely "directed not so much against faith in Christ per se as against those activities of Christians which were regarded as objectionable by the synagogue-community involved (cf. Acts 18:5-7, 13)". Thus, we conclude tentatively that the Fourth Gospel may refer to a kind of ad hoc, spontaneous community disapproval to the preaching that "Jesus was the Christ." This action would amount to removing someone from the synagogue more by group outrage than by formal ban. It is probable that only later, when Synagogue and Church had come close to the brink of final separation, were any formal bans imposed. [emphasis added]

For Reflection and Comment

How might the Christian Church, without compromising the Gospel, demonstrate that followers of Jesus are not an heretical sect, and heal the rift with Israel and the Jews?

Next time: The fall of Israel under Rome.

Clifford Denton concludes his study of the Apostle Paul's attitude to Torah.

In order to recover Christianity's intended relationship with Israel, we must study the way they grew apart. There are a number of historical factors that began in the First Century and continued up to the present day – it was a gradual process more than a one-off event. It is important to consider each of these factors carefully.

In this study we will continue to consider Paul's attitude to Torah. It was inevitable that theological differences would occur between the disciples of Jesus and the existing rabbinical sects, so the developing tension would always have the potential of causing a rift. Nevertheless, when we read Romans 11:11 we might wonder if the Christian Church has fulfilled its particular calling to provoke the Jews to jealousy, when some branches of Christianity are all but unrecognisable as the authentic fulfillment of Old Covenant promises.

Has the Christian Church become so estranged from its roots that it now fails to provoke Jews to jealousy with its fulfilment of Covenant promises?"

It is therefore reasonable to reassess Paul's perspectives in order to recover the balance we need.

Need for balance

Above all, nevertheless, we must remember who we are in the Lord Jesus as we study these things and not lose our New Covenant inheritance through any form of imbalance. Time and again, Paul emphasised that disciples of Jesus were saved by grace. Theirs was a walk of faith, according to the life of the Holy Spirit. We must not detract from this wonderful liberating truth. We who are saved by faith must not return to the external obligations of ritual halakhah.

Yet, Paul also knew that the Lord Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, had taught:

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil. I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:17-19)

There is a balance for New Covenant believers to achieve between walking in the liberation of grace through faith, and not rejecting God's law."

Paul the Apostle taught the life of the Spirit; he also had the depth of understanding of Torah to use the Scriptures to teach heart principles. For example, he used Deuteronomy 25:4 (concerning feeding oxen who tread the grain) to argue the case to care for those who teach the Gospel (see 1 Cor 9:9, 1 Tim 5:18).

Linking the New with the Old

The New Testament is not a new law book to replace the Law of Moses, so we will find only a few examples of Paul's way of thinking to link back to Torah. The more we consider this, however, the more serious our own quest to connect new with old should appear. Consider, for example, a principle illustrated in passages such as Ezekiel 26:2-3:

Son of man, because Tyre has said against Jerusalem, 'Aha'...Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you...

Tyre came to nothing because the people did not respond correctly to the Babylonian captivity of Judah, thinking they should mock the people whom their God had abandoned. Could Paul's understanding of this be behind his statement in Romans 11:18-21:

...do not boast against the branches...do not be haughty but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either...

Paul's biblical mindset led to his understanding of weighty matters concerning the God of Israel, some with important prophetic significance.

For fear of Judaising, many Bible teachers have barely begun to handle the Scriptures so fluently as Paul."

For fear of Judaising, many Bible teachers have barely begun to handle the Scriptures so fluently as Paul. Over the centuries there have been many alternative standpoints from which Scripture has been taught. Let us, therefore, consider these.

Two extremes

In Our Father Abraham, Marvin Wilson gives the example of Marcionism- a set of Church teachings originating in Rome with Marcion of Sinope, in the 2nd Century AD. Wilson writes (p108):

To some degree, Marcion appears to have been influenced by the dualistic teachings of Gnosticism. Thus he held that the world, with its appalling evils, was created by a Demiurge (a term Gnostics borrowed from Platonism). This cruel god of battles and bloody sacrifices, so Marcion contended, was revealed in the pages of the Old Testament. He insisted that since an evil world could not be created by a good God, the Old Testament was really the Demiurge's book and hence of lesser status than the New. The Old was the great antithesis of the New and thus was demeaned as being imperfect, offensive, and unedifying.

But the New Testament, Marcion insisted, revealed the true God in the coming of Christ from heaven. Unlike the Demiurge, this God was a God of love. Marcion argued that the New Testament, being Christ's book (not that of the Demiurge), was unquestionably superior to the Old Testament. Furthermore, in his quest to demote the Old Testament from its recognized position of authority, he began to extol the writings of Paul, which held that Christians were "free from the Law" (cf Galatians 5:1). He contended firmly that the Church was wrong in attempting to combine the gospel with Judaism. Indeed, Marcion's principle goal was to rid Christianity of every trace of Judaism. Hence Marcion became the archenemy of the "Jew God".

Wilson goes on to point out that Marcionism is still prevalent in the Christian Church today albeit in another guise. By contrast, he also writes of another sect of Early Christianity called the Ebionites (p25):

The Ebionites, a Jewish-Christian sect which flourished for several centuries after A.D. 70, are most likely a continuing reflection of the Judaizing movement. An ascetic group, committed to poverty as a life-style, the Ebionites upheld the whole Jewish Law but rejected Paul's letters on the grounds that he was an apostate from the Law.

These are two extreme examples of the many views Christians have taken on Paul's teaching. They show that the consequences of our worldview, mindset or way of thinking can be profound, ranging from antinomianism to legal bondage.

Olive Tree Theology

In Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel (Jewish New Testament Publications, 1988) David Stern explores three types of theology, which he terms Covenant, Dispensational and "Olive Tree". Of the first two he writes (p16):

Christian theologians have usually followed one or two approaches in dealing with this subject. The older and better known one is generally called Replacement theology or Covenant theology, although it is also appearing these days under other names; it says that the Church is "Spiritual" Israel or the "New" Israel, having replaced the "Old" Israel (the Jews) as God's people.

More recently there has developed in Protestant quarters Dispensational theology, which, in its more extreme form, says that the Jewish people have promises only on earth, while the Church has promises in heaven.

David Stern goes on to remind his readers of the Olive Tree metaphor of Romans 11, inventing the term "Olive Tree theology". This was the way that Paul considered the Covenant community to be defined. Gentiles are grafted by faith into an existing body in which Jesus the Messiah is central, and where the roots go back to the Patriarchs and the Covenants.

Paul defined the New Covenant community as branches grafted by faith into an existing tree, rooted in the Patriarchs and Old Testament covenants, in which Messiah Jesus is central."

How does the Torah fit into Paul's Olive Tree theology? Since Covenant history for Israel was Torah-based (intended to be understood in the right way), we from the Gentile world, with a different background to our lives, must be careful not to read into what he says through our own preconceptions, thereby misunderstanding what he is really teaching us.

Let us consider Paul's way of thinking a little more.

Paul's Way of Thinking

We can start in a number of places to anchor Paul's way of thinking. Following David Stern, Romans 11 is one place, where Paul brings balance to his teaching to the Romans about how the Gentiles were saved by grace through faith, entering the existing community of Jewish disciples of Jesus the Messiah.

Acts 15 is another place, where we see Paul and the other apostles and elders grappling with issues of halakhah for Gentile converts and deciding that the Torah is not to be a set of obligations, but is to be learned, in its fulfilled sense, through the Holy Spirit. A new and living halakhah was being launched into the world by the power of the Holy Spirit, but the Covenant heart was still founded on the Torah of God.

We could also start in Galatians and find a strong word against the wrong interpretation of Torah which deprives the believer of his freedom in Messiah.

Wherever we start, we must conclude that Paul does not teach that the Torah is replaced by something else. Instead, Paul leads the believer to trust in God and live by faith, recognising the value of the written Torah as a guide and inspiration. He shows great trust in God rather than man (including those Rabbis who, with strongly held traditional interpretations, did not recognise the Messiah) for the willingness to guide each believer on to maturity, within the context of the believing community.

Wherever you start in Paul's writings, he does not teach that the Torah is replaced by something else. Instead, he leads believers to trust in God and live by faith, valuing the Torah as a guide and inspiration."

In Romans 7:12 he recalls that though the flesh is too weak to obtain salvation for a person by striving for righteousness, the Torah is nevertheless holy:

Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

In writing to Timothy, he upholds the Torah as the foundation of teaching:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Here, we must interpret 'Scripture' as the existing Tanakh (Torah, Prophets and Writings – what came to be called the Old Testament by Christians). The New Testament was still emerging and was not yet united as a single document.

Walking with God

Yet, we sense that Paul is urging his students on to a personal walk with God rather than the ritual lifestyle that typified Israel before the coming of Messiah and the giving of the Holy Spirit. He also exhorted Timothy:

But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (1 Tim 1:8-11)

Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Gal 3:24-25)

Paul sees that New Covenant faith is like the faith of Abraham that leads a person to walk with God. That is the goal of Torah. He sees Jesus the Messiah as central to the fulfillment and goals of Torah, like the objective one sees through a telescope when one is on a journey (to a destination). This is the "end" or "goal" of the Torah in Romans 10:4, which is the pivot point of the teaching in the Letter to the Romans, where Paul shows the chief and central context of the Torah is Jesus the Messiah:

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom 10:4)

Thus Paul's mindset is completely Christ-centred whilst also being Torah-centred. He sees beyond his Rabbinical training whilst not denying his roots. He sees a need for the grace of God and the fulfillment of the sacrificial system for sin permanently accomplished in Jesus, so that the punishment for sin of those who believe is also nailed to the cross (Col 2:14). He exhorts us to freedom in Jesus and a walk in the Spirit of God with the Torah on our hearts.

Paul's mindset is completely Christ-centred whilst also being Torah-centred: he urges believers on to freedom in Jesus and a personal walk with God with the Torah on our hearts."

Those who read Paul as denying Torah and breaking from Covenant history have not understood his background, and have misunderstood his message of freedom from sin in the power of the Holy Spirit.

A Balanced Perspective

Since Paul is so central to the teaching of the New Testament, many books have been written concerning his relationship with Torah. The secret is to first assess the context of Paul's call and understand the background from which he came. Then it is possible to walk through this theological minefield without danger, recognising the error of those who are reading into the Scriptures what they have already decided that Paul would say, to justify their bias.

The issue is balance. Paul does not exhort us to come under the yoke and limits of rabbinic Judaism. This led to the powerful letter the Galatians. Salvation is by grace alone and through faith, leading to a walk in the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God is the gift of God to a disciple of Jesus. The authority of the rabbis to interpret Torah had, inevitably, become bondage to external show rather than spiritual relationship.

Nevertheless, we must recognise that the roots of Judaism are also the roots of Christianity. Christianity must not be a replacement but a fulfillment of Torah. Indeed a new form of legalism within Christianity, perhaps equivalent to a sect of Rabbinic Judaism, is not the goal either, but a continuity of biblical Torah founded in covenant history which leads to the faith of Abraham in the context of knowing all of God's teaching. Paul leads us to a maturity which bears the fruits of justice and mercy through love, whilst living humbly in the protection of Jesus for the shortcomings of our lives.

Paul encourages us towards the faith of Abraham: walking with God, knowing his teaching and bearing the fruits of his Spirit, whilst living in the protection of Jesus for our own short-comings."

The curse of the law (Gal 3:13) was the curse for disobedience (Deut 27). It was this curse that Jesus took upon himself so that we could be free, not to sin but to walk with God under the leading of his Spirit. It was not that the Torah of God was a curse, but that we needed help because of our inability to attain the righteousness that is at the heart of Torah.

For Study and Prayer

In Ephesians 5:18 Paul writes, "be filled with the Spirit." In a similar passage, Colossians 3:16, he writes, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly." How might a Christian fulfill Romans 11:11 by a balanced walk in word and Spirit?

Next time: Paul and the spread of the Gospel.