Believers in Smyrna were poor but faithful, hated but loved. Frances Rabbitts unpacks the letter to this persecuted church.

"To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:

These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again. I know your afflictions and your poverty – yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death." (Rev 2:8-11)

Revelation was received, written and circulated during a time when Christians across Asia Minor faced increasingly heated persecution – hence its reliance on symbolic language that non-believers would not understand.

Whilst an emphasis on persecution and trial runs right through the whole Book of Revelation, the letter written to the church in Smyrna is particularly devoted to encouraging believers to stand firm in the face of a coming onslaught, during which many would have been imprisoned, tortured and killed.

Great Fire of Smyrna, 1922.The words would have spoken incredibly clearly to believers at the time – and they have lost none of their relevance through the years. The last time believers in Smyrna were attacked en masse was actually in the 20th Century – in 1922, when incoming Turkish soldiers slaughtered tens of thousands of Christians (causing 1.5 million more to flee as refugees) - far more than would ever have died under Rome.¹

Today the words have great poignancy for the millions of Christians worldwide suffering for the faith – and are yet relevant to the whole Body, for "if one part [of the Body] suffers, every part suffers with it" (1 Cor 12:26). As we will also see, its exhortations apply in a spiritual way to all believers, whether they are undergoing trials in this life or not.

The last time believers in Smyrna were attacked en masse was actually in 1922, when Turkish soldiers slaughtered far more Christians than would ever have died under Rome.

Ancient SmyrnaThe agora in modern Izmir, Turkey.

Smyrna (modern-day Izmir, named in 1930 – simply the Turkish rendering of the Greek name) was an ancient Greek seaport on the coast of Asia Minor (about 50 miles north of Ephesus) and a leading city in Greek antiquity. Situated in a sheltered valley between the mountains and the sea, like Ephesus, Smyrna was at the mouth of a great Anatolian trade route. Today it is still an industrial transit city - but known more for its urban sprawl than for its historic glory.

The oldest city on the Aegean coast and founded by the Hittites, Smyrna experienced large-scale migration from the Greek mainland c.1200 BC, completely transforming its cultural fabric. It grew in splendour and was 'talent-spotted' by Alexander the Great in the 4^th Century BC, who deliberately rebuilt the city on the opposite side of the bay to take advantage of the view.

This more 'modern' Smyrna had all the advantages of a purpose-built Greek city – gym, stadium, theatre and broad, well-paved streets.² The city's main street extended from the temple of Zeus in the west to that of Cybele in the east. When governance of Smyrna was transferred peacefully to the Roman Empire in 133 BC, Greek buildings and architecture were not destroyed, but adapted and extended.

The Christians Community in Smyrna

By the time the Gospel arrived, Smyrna was a bustling, prosperous, polytheistic city of many magnificent temples and a fusion of cultures. Smyrna had a Christian population from very early on, the seeds of which were planted and watered by Bishop Polycarp, who was instructed and appointed by the early apostles and later martyred. Smyrna's initial group of Jewish converts grew rapidly into a larger community of both Messianics and Gentile believers.

Believers were not necessarily rich (hence the mention in the letter of their apparent 'poverty'), but they were liberated from the shackles of Greco-Roman religion, into which the Gospel spoke as a breath of fresh air. By the time Revelation was written, there were at least 500 churches in the region; the Gospel was having great success.

By the time the Gospel arrived, Smyrna was a bustling, prosperous, polytheistic city of many magnificent temples and a fusion of cultures.

Spread of Persecution

As the faith flourished, however, so Christianity began to be perceived as a threat, both to the traditional pagan religions of Rome and to orthodox Judaism.

Christians in the Roman Empire were initially tolerated as a Jewish sect, but as the faith spread amongst Gentiles and the differences between Christians and Jews who had not accepted Jesus as Messiah became increasingly observable to outsiders, civic authorities turned against the believing community. Christians were painted as trouble-makers and subversives, refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of Caesar, worshipping in private (rumours abounded) and declining participation in pagan festivals.

Persecution under Nero in the 60s AD (during which Peter and Paul likely were both martyred) was mercifully brief, but took a more serious and widespread turn under Domitian, who enforced the practice of 'Lord's Day' - when all citizens had to declare 'Caesar is Lord' or face terrible persecution – and when John, banished to Patmos by Roman officials, received the Revelation from Jesus.

The Letter to the Church in Smyrna

The letter to the church in Smyrna would have been received during a time of great persecution, likely under Domitian. It is unsurprising, then, that its central aim is to strengthen and encourage believers, whilst being frank about the coming trials. The Lord Jesus does not mince words, deny facts or try to paint a rosier picture to quell the fears of his beloved ones – he clearly states that trouble is coming, and will be tough, but that the crown of life to be won will be worth the fight.

Christians, increasingly isolated and targeted by both Rome and some more militant groups of orthodox Jews (hence Jesus's mention of the 'synagogue of Satan'), lived in daily fear of false accusations and even infiltration of their churches by those who would betray them to officials. The letter gives a prophetic warning of "ten days" of trial, not unlike Daniel and his companions in Babylonian captivity, who publicly put themselves to the test for ten days to prove that God could sustain them on a diet of vegetables and water.³

The ten days mentioned for Smyrna may have been literal, or symbolic, or both – but the principles behind the Lord Jesus's encouragement echo down through the ages to all believers undergoing suffering: this is an opportunity to let the fire of testing prove the capacity of God to sustain his beloved children; for them to learn that though they may have nothing in the eyes of the world, in the eyes of Heaven they have everything (see Gal 4:6-7). Though they should expect to be hated by those who still belong to the evil one, they should also know that they are enduringly loved by the One who is victorious above all.

The Lord Jesus does not paint a rosier picture to quell the fears of his beloved ones – he clearly states that trouble is coming, but that it will be worth the fight.

Do Not Be Afraid - Be Faithful

Unlike the other letters, the one addressed to those in Smyrna has no rebuke or call to repentance. These were beloved children undergoing – and about to undergo further - immense difficulty. There is a sense here of the Lord Jesus coming alongside his brothers and sisters in solidarity, reassuring them that he knew of their circumstances and encouraging them to endure, faithfully (also John 14:18). How often do we cry out to the Lord to relieve us of our trials, instead of humbly recognising that he might require us to walk with him through the valley, rather than around it – even though he knows our suffering and cares deeply about our pain?

As the Father did not relieve the Son of the cup of suffering, so often we too must drink from it, for the eternal joy set before us. In fact, the letter itself puts everything in perspective, beginning as it does by addressing the Lord Jesus as "him who is the first and the last [the Alpha and Omega], who died and came to life again": the same words Jesus also used to reassure John when he was afraid at the beginning of the Revelation vision (Rev 1:17-18).

The perspective here is clear: the Lord Jesus IS LORD OF ALL and had already gone ahead of us, through death, emerging victorious. Like the other letters, this one also refers to those who 'overcome' the trials at hand – those who follow Jesus into his victory - who are "more than conquerors" according to Romans 8:37.⁴

Persecution Today

Today our brothers and sisters around the world need our prayers and aid more than ever, as Sunday's terrible slaughter of worshippers in Cairo demonstrates. The number of Christians killed in the last year almost doubled on 2015 figures, exceeding 7,000 according to Open Doors' conservative figures - and this is without counting atrocities in Syria, Iraq and North Korea, where accurate records are not kept.⁵

The number of churches attacked and destroyed has also more than doubled in the last year, and millions of Christians are on the move around the world as refugees fleeing religious violence. The greatest source of persecution continues to be religious extremism – not just Islamic, but also Hindu and Buddhist.⁶

Meanwhile, the Western Church is just beginning to feel the pinch of an intolerant secular humanist culture, and many discern the Lord at work sifting too-comfortable church-goers by allowing various deceptions to proliferate, including liberalism and new age occult. But for the most part, we in the West in this generation do not know what it is to suffer the fires of persecution. That road may lie ahead for us, as yet untrodden. Furthermore, we are also largely ignorant of the suffering of other parts of the Body around the world.

As the Father did not relieve the Son of the cup of suffering, so often we too must drink from it, for the eternal joy set before us.

Life Through Death

Yet, the message to Smyrna is actually relevant to all believers everywhere – not just those undergoing dreadful persecution. There is a process that God wants every Christian to undergo, regardless of where they are in the world, how materially blessed they are or what difficulties they face: it is that costly process of refining that feels very much like trial on the inside (whether or not it looks like it on the outside), and is with eternal and Divine purpose. For our God disciplines those He loves, desiring that they be purified by holy fire, even though this process might be painful.

In this sense, every believer is called to a life of suffering, as our flesh-life is put to death that the new, eternal life in the spirit might grow and flourish. We are therefore to expect 'trouble' in this life (John 16:33), both within and without. God's desire is to purify us to such an extent that when he has finished, no earthly trial can stand against us or stop our light from shining.

David Wilkerson unpacks another facet of this: he talks about God wanting to share his heart of grief with those who are willing and hungry to walk closely with the Lord Jesus.⁷ This is the road less travelled, which includes sharing in the Lord's own heart for this broken world and allowing ourselves to be brought low by it, counting it all as heavenly privilege that we get to somehow participate in what Jesus himself went (and still goes) through.

This is the honoured road along which I believe God shepherds all believers who diligently and wholeheartedly seek him. As missionary Helen Roseveare, who died last week, said: "God never uses a person greatly until He has wounded him deeply."

Today our brothers and sisters around the world need our prayers and aid more than ever.

'The Privilege is Greater than the Price'

The world is approaching a critical point – so many things are on the verge of complete collapse – even unbelievers sense the severity of the age. The Lord is looking for those who love him enough to give up their worldly desires and aspirations, to the point of laying down their very lives, submitting themselves to his process of refining and saying always "Thy will be done", even when it hurts.

But let us take heart, as those in Smyrna hopefully also did: for those who overcome will not be hurt at all by the second death, but will be given the crown of life by "him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again". Ultimately, to quote Helen Roseveare again, "The privilege He offers you is greater than the price you have to pay. The privilege is greater than the price."

References

1 See Hill, C & Hill, M, 2005. Ephesus to Laodicea. Handsel Press. This is a fantastic biblical guide to the Revelation churches written particularly for those visiting the region. It is highly recommended as accompanying reading for this series.

2 See Wikipedia's page on Smyrna for a brief history.

3 Lehman, R. "And ye shall have tribulation ten days". 17 October 2008.

4 See note 1.

5 Persecution: The Key Facts. Open Doors.

6 Ibid.

7 Wilkerson, D, 1992. Hungry for More of Jesus, chapter 3. One Pound Classics.

Click here for the the rest of the articles in this series.

David Forbes gives some historical background to the Book of Revelation, as we start a new series on the messages given to the churches in Asia.

In 81 AD, Domitian became Emperor of Rome and its dominions. During his reign he launched a particularly savage persecution of both Christians and Jews, the main reason for which was Caesar worship. Domitian was the first Roman Emperor, apart from the insane Caligula, to take his 'divinity' seriously, and demand Caesar worship. He insisted on always being addressed as Lord and God and carried out a campaign of bitter persecution against all those who would not worship him - the atheists, as he called them.

This is the historical background to the Book of Revelation. All over the Roman Empire men and women were required to acknowledge that the Emperor was Lord, or die - especially on the Lord's (or Lordy) Day (Rev 1:10), a special day in the year when every citizen was required to cast some incense on the altar fire in a local temple and repeat the words 'Caesar is Lord'.

What were Christians, for whom only Jesus is Lord, to do? They were relatively few in number and they had no influence or power to fight against the might of an Empire which no nation or people had been able to withstand. The choice was simple, Caesar or Christ, and as a result there were many Christian martyrs. Why were they under such tyranny? Why were they being left to suffer and die so cruelly? Where was God? Where was their promised salvation through Jesus the Messiah? How long, Sovereign Lord? they cried.

Emperor Domitian, who insisted upon Caesar worship. See Photo Credits.It was to bring hope and encouragement in these times of great trial and terror that the Book of the Revelation was written to the believers in the churches of the great Roman province of Asia.

Apocalyptic Writing

In order to understand further the message of the letters to the churches we need to appreciate their literary form. The Book of the Revelation is unique in the New Testament, in that it belongs to a type of Jewish literature called the apocalyptic writings. Indeed, the very first word of the letter is the Greek apokalupsis – 'the revelation' in English. Apocalyptic literature was one of the most common types of Jewish writing during the period between the Old and New Testaments.

After the return from exile in Babylon, the Jewish people soon became the subjects of Alexander the Great and his successors, during which time they were put under great pressure from Hellenism. Hellenism was the adopting of all things Greek - language, education, philosophy and culture – by the peoples who came under the rule of Alexander and his generals.

This was especially so when, during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC), every attempt was made to force Greek political and cultural institutions upon them and the observance of the Jewish religion became punishable by death. Many Jews at this time chose death rather than be false to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Mass martyrdom became the order of the day.

It was to bring hope and encouragement in times of great trial and terror that the Book of the Revelation was written to the believers.

At that time, and then again during the period of Roman domination when the various revolts by the Jewish Zealots brought about the death of many, people began to question where God was and why he was not bringing about salvation for them. Had not God chosen them as his people? Had the prophets not promised that one day, God himself would come with a mighty intervention to deliver them from all their enemies and raise up his Messiah, who would inaugurate an everlasting kingdom of righteousness and peace? Where was the Day of the Lord?

It was to deal with these questions and to bring a ray of encouragement and hope into a difficult situation of pressure and confusion that apocalyptic writing came into being. It dealt with the sin of the present time, with the evils of tyranny, oppression and persecution, and with the great intervention of God when he would descend on to the stage of history and put everything right. He would bring to an end the world that they knew and bring in his golden age of blessing. The message of apocalyptic literature was that though things maybe bad and will probably get worse, don't weaken and give up - hang on, because everything will be all right in the end. God will vindicate his people and be victorious!

Differences Between Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature

There are many examples of apocalyptic literature from the period between the two Testaments. Writings such as Enoch, The Assumption of Moses, The Ascension of Isaiah, The Apocalypse of Baruch and Fourth Ezra are just some. The Book of Daniel is considered by Jewish people to be an apocalyptic book, rather than a prophetic one. It is the only such kind of writing to be included in the canon of the Hebrew Bible, where it appears in the section called ketuvim, 'the writings', rather than in the section called nevi'im, 'the prophets'. There was considerable difference between what the Jewish people understood as prophecy, such as the messages given through Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos and Zechariah for example, and what they understood as apocalyptic writing.

Dominated by successive cruel empires, the Jewish people were questioning where God was. Apocalyptic writing came into being to answer their questions.

The Hebrew prophets thought mainly in terms of this present world. Their message was often put in terms of the need for social, economic and political justice. They were concerned that men should hear the word of God and turn back to him in repentance. The prophets were concerned that people should learn to obey and serve him in this present world. It was here and now that God's will needed to be done and his purposes of peace and blessing be fulfilled.

The message of the apocalyptist was that the world was beyond saving and that it was dominated by evil. The only remedy was for God to destroy it and set up a new golden age in a new world. It was a written, rather than a spoken message; whereas the prophet spoke forth the word of God clearly and boldly so that all could understand, the apocalyptist always wrote his message down. It was usually in the language of dream and vision, and the actual words used were usually in coded form. The reason for this was doubtless that if the writings ever fell into the hands of the oppressing power, they would not be able to learn the message of the visions and therefore would be unprepared for what was coming.

Whereas everybody knew the identity of Israel's prophets, Jewish apocalyptic writing is pseudonymous - that is to say that it was written not under the author's name, but under the name of someone else. The Jewish writers opted to attribute their writings to the great and well-known men of the past, such as Moses or Isaiah, Enoch, Ezra or Baruch. It may be that they did this because they believed that they were not worthy to be read and thought that by attributing their writings to the great men of the past they were investing them with an authority that they themselves could never give.

Revelation: Provenance and Authorship

The Book of the Revelation is very much an apocalyptic writing. It has most of the hallmarks of apocalyptic literature. It is different, however, in that it is not pseudonymous and that it has a strong Messianic perspective. The Day of the Lord is none other than the great and glorious appearing of Jesus the Messiah, who has already once appeared as the Paschal lamb to take away the sin of the world and is now appearing for the second time to set up his earthly kingdom.

Revelation is very Hebraic, full of Old Testament allusion, pointing to many Jewish traditions and even quoting ideas from other Jewish apocalyptic writings. It includes around 500 allusions to the text of the Old Testament, particularly the books of Exodus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah and Daniel. So without a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament, and these books in particular, the original readers of John's Apocalypse would have struggled to understand the message.

The Hebrew prophets spoke and wrote mainly in terms of the present world - apocalyptic writers looked forward to the world to come.

Similarly, many of God's people today are confused and puzzled by this letter simply because of their lack of understanding of its Hebraic nature in biblical background and culture, as well as language. Although it was written in the common Greek language of the day, it is a kind of translation – Greek, full of Hebraic language idiom.

lndeed, because of the bad grammar and syntax (which probably makes it the worst Greek in the New Testament), many scholars have had difficulty accepting that it was written by the same man who penned a Gospel and three Epistles.

The author, John, tells us that he was given what he calls a prophecy by the Lord Jesus himself, on the island of Patmos, most probably in exile as a result of the Domitian persecution. Here is a further difference between this book and other Jewish apocalyptic literature, in that it is reflecting the fact that God has restored prophecy to his people, as a result of the coming of the Holy Spirit. The Lord Jesus knows what his people are suffering and he wants to tell them what must soon take place.

To the Churches in Asia...

The Revelation is presented overall in the form of a letter to seven churches in the province of Asia, who themselves are each given an individual message in letter form from the Lord. When we speak of Asia we are not, of course, referring to the continent of Asia that we know today, but the Roman province which we now know as Turkey. It comprised the western (Mediterranean) sea-coast of Asia Minor with Phrygia, Mysia, Caria and Lycia. Its administrative capitol and seat of the Roman governor was the great city of Pergamos (also called Pergamon or Pergamum, close to modern-day Bergama, Turkey).

The seven churches that are named; Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, are by no means the only churches that we know of in the Roman province of Asia. The Bible also tells us of churches in Colossae, Hierapolis, Troas and Miletus. From the letters of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, we learn that there were also churches at Magnesia and Tralles. Why then should only seven be selected and why this particular selection?

Many scholars doubt that Revelation was penned by the same 'John' who penned a Gospel and three Epistles.

One reason may be that the particular churches chosen were situated on a kind of ring-road around the centre of the province. William Barclay says that they could be regarded as the centres of seven postal districts and that letters sent to these cities could easily then be circulated around the whole province. Undoubtedly the purpose of the letter was that it should be read in all the churches so that all believers might know the Lord's message. Even the individual letters to the seven churches were intended to be read by all.

The churches of Asia Minor, and indeed all the churches of the Roman world, were going through great trauma as a result of the Domitian persecution. However, it must have been of comfort to them to know that the Lord himself knew precisely what their problems were as well as the solution to them.

Next week, we will look at the message given to the church in Ephesus.

This article was first published in Prophecy Today, Vol 12 No 6, Nov/Dec 1996. Revised December 2016.

Click here for the other articles in this series.

Clifford Denton looks at the growing distinction between Jewish and Christian communities in the first century AD, and the Roman persecution which propelled it.

In the last few studies we have reviewed the initial factors that disturbed the unity of the early Christian Church from its Hebraic heritage. This week we will consider how the parting of the ways was effected by the middle of the second century.

Recap

In Our Father Abraham, Dr Marvin Wilson summarises the factors that led to the early separation of the Christian Church from its Jewish roots:

• There was inevitable tension over the proclamation that Jesus was the expected Messiah, both in terms of Messianic expectation and of theological interpretation.
• Though one has to deal carefully with the reaction of the Synagogue, it seems wise to conclude that at first, there was only general resistance to Christians from this quarter, rather than total exclusion.
• The rising alternative Messianic expectations in the Jewish Revolts brought another element to separation. Followers of Jesus did not form an alliance with those in revolt against Rome, and so were further alienated from the general Jewish community.
• Meanwhile, the failure of the revolts brought catastrophe to the Jewish nation, the fall of the Temple and of the city of Jerusalem, the Diaspora, the rise of the Synagogues and the move to codify the Oral traditions and consolidate Judaism. Both Church and Synagogue were contributing to their parting of ways.

Understanding this early divergence and the separation which followed is not just a useful history lesson. It helps us to understand even the current situation relating to Christianity and Judaism - not so much to allocate blame, but to better appreciate what needs to be repaired in their relationship.

1st Century Jews and Christians differed because of their theologies, their Messianic expectations and the fallout from the Jewish revolts.

Growing Diversion

Clues to the degree of separation between the Christian Church and the Synagogue can be pieced together from available historical evidence. For example, a comment is made by the Roman historian Suetonius concerning a dispute between Jews and Jewish Christians in Rome in 49 AD. Claudius expelled both groups as if there were no distinction between them:

He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Christus. (From Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Suetonias. Available as a Wordsworth Classic, 1997)

However, by the time of Nero in 64 AD, there was a distinction between Christians and Jews - and it was the Christians who were blamed by Nero for the burning of Rome. The Emperor NeroRoman historian Tacitus discusses this in his Annals of Imperial Rome. Following a description of a night of debauchery involving Nero we read:

Disaster followed. Whether it was accidental or caused by criminal act on the part of the emperor is uncertain – both versions have supporters. Now started the most terrible and destructive fire which Rome has ever experienced. It began in the Circus, where it adjoins the Palentine and Caelian hills. Breaking out in shops selling inflammable goods, and fanned by the wind, the conflagration instantly grew and swept the whole length of the Circus...First, the fire swept violently over the level spaces. Then it climbed the hills...

Terrified, shrieking women, helpless old and young, people intent on their own safety, people unselfishly supporting invalids or waiting for them, fugitives and lingerers alike – all heightened the confusion. When people looked back, menacing flames sprang up before them or outflanked them. When they escaped to a neighbouring quarter, the fire followed – even districts believed to be remote proved to be involved...

The fire raged for several days and only four of Rome's fourteen districts remained intact. Nero looked for a scapegoat. Tacitus describes this clearly:

...neither human resources, nor imperial munificence, nor appeasement of the gods, eliminated sinister suspicions that the fire had been instigated. To suppress rumour, Nero fabricated scapegoats – and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capital.

First, Nero had self-acknowledged Christians arrested. Then, on their information, large numbers of others were condemned – not so much for incendiarism as for their anti-social tendencies. Their deaths were made farcical. Dressed in wild animals' skins, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight. Nero provided his Gardens for the spectacle, and exhibited displays in the Circus, at which he mingled with the crowd – or stood in a chariot, dressed as a charioteer. Despite their guilt as Christians, and the ruthless punishment it deserved, the victims were pitied. For it was felt that they were being sacrificed to one man's brutality rather than to the national interest. [emphases added]

Thus, from descriptions of the flow of history we find that observers have given us evidence as to the timing of the separation between Jewish and Christian communities. Between the middle and end of the first century, this separation was becoming more noticeable – Jews and Christians were treated as two distinct groups. We now turn to another clue which will help us understand their growing divergence.

By the end of the first century AD, Jews and Christians were being treated as two separate communities.

From Sabbath to Sunday

In his extensive analysis, From Sabbath to Sunday (Pontifical Gregorian University Press, Rome, 1977), Samuele Bacchiocchi traces the details of when Christian celebrations of the Sabbath became Sunday meetings. This is a major clue to how far the Church had become separated from the Jewish community. His analysis confirms the view given by Wilson in Our Father Abraham that by the time of Justin Martyr (around 160 AD), "the parting of the way seems to be largely finalized" (p83).

Bacchiocchi notes that early Christians celebrated the Sabbath in the tradition of Judaism:

...analysis of the New Testament sources regarding the Jerusalem Church has firmly established that the primitive Christian community there was composed primarily of and administered by converted Jews who retained a deep attachment to Jewish religious customs such as Sabbath-keeping. It is therefore impossible to assume that a new day of worship was introduced by the Jerusalem Church prior to the destruction of the city in A.D. 70. We might add that in view of the enormous influence exerted on the Church at large by the Jewish Christian leadership and membership, it would have been practically impossible for any Church anywhere to introduce Sunday observance prior to A.D. 70. W.D. Davies, a well-recognized specialist on early Christianity, concisely and sagaciously summarizes the religious situation at the time:

'Everywhere, especially in the East of the Roman Empire, there would be Jewish Christians whose outward way of life would not be markedly different from that of the Jews. They took it for granted that the gospel was continuous with Judaism; for them the new covenant, which Jesus had set up at the Last Supper with his disciples and sealed by his death, did not mean that the covenant made between God and Israel was no longer in force. They still observed the feasts of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles; they also continued to be circumcised, to keep the weekly Sabbath and the Mosaic regulations concerning food. According to some scholars, they must have been so strong that right up to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 they were the dominant element in the Christian movement.' (p151, with a quote from WD Davies, Paul and Jewish Christianity, 1972. Emphases added)

Even up to 135 AD, despite the flight to Pella by Christians after the fall of Jerusalem, there is evidence of continued observance of the Jewish traditions among those in the Jerusalem congregations. Yet, various other factors gradually eroded this adherence to biblical custom. This seems particularly to be the case when Gentiles came to be the majority in the Christian Church and when congregations developed outside of the Land of Israel.

Bacchiocchi identifies trends in this way with the Church in Rome. We have rehearsed some of the historical factors regarding Christians and Jews in both Israel and Rome and the various pressures that were evident on these communities. Bacchiocchi concludes:

The introduction of Sunday worship in place of "Jewish" Sabbath-keeping- the latter being particularly derided by several Roman writers of the time – could well represent a measure taken by the leaders of the Church of Rome to evidence their severance from Judaism and thereby also avoid the payment of a discriminatory tax. (p173)

Christian Anti-Judaism

Bacchiocchi also identifies a broad range of Christian writers who wrote against the Jews in the second century:

...how different at that time was the attitude of many Christian writers towards the Jews! A whole body of anti-Judaic literature was produced in the second century condemning the Jews socially and theologically...

...The following list of significant authors and/or writings which defamed the Jews to a lesser or greater degree may serve to make the reader aware of the existence and intensity of the problem: 'The Preaching of Peter', 'The Epistle of Barnabus', Quadratus' lost 'Apology', Aristides' 'Apology', 'The Disputation between Jason and Papiscus concerning Christ', Justin's 'Dialogue with Trypho', Miltiades' 'Against the Jews' (unfortunately lost), Apollinarius' 'Against the Jews' (also perished), Melito's 'On the Passover', 'The Epistle to Diognetus', 'The Gospel of Peter', Tertullian's 'Against the Jews', Origen's 'Against Celsus'. (p179)

Justin, in particular, is singled out to demonstrate the issue:

The Sabbath to Justin is a temporary ordinance, derived from Moses, which God did not intend to be kept literally, for He Himself "does not stop controlling the movement of the universe on that day." He imposed it solely on the Jews as "a mark to single them out for punishment they so well deserved for their infidelities." The acceptance of this thesis makes God guilty, to say the least, of discriminatory practices, inasmuch as He would have given ordinances for the sole negative purpose of singling out the Jews for punishment.

Thus we can trace the general trend of Church leaders in the Gentile world, particularly in Rome, to react against their Jewish roots and to demonstrate this through ignoring the Sabbath day. This in turn led to Christians distinguishing themselves by meeting on the first day of the week instead. This was very clear by the middle of the second century.

The general trend amongst Church leaders in the Gentile world, and particularly in Rome, was to react against their Jewish roots.

Summary

In the years in which we now live, distant from the beginning of the new movement in the world of Judaism that came to be called Christianity, both Jews and Christians are looking back to discover how their ways parted. David Flusser, an eminent scholar of Judaism and the origins of Christianity, confirms the view that we have considered in this study:

The Jewish origin of Christianity is an historical fact. It is also clear that Christianity constituted a new community, distinct from Judaism. Thus, Christianity is in the peculiar position of being a religion which, because of its Jewish roots, is obliged to be occupied with Judaism, while a Jew can live his Jewish religious life without wrestling with the problems of Christianity.

From its very beginnings, Christianity understood itself more or less as the heir of Judaism and as its true expression, at the same time that it knew itself to have come into existence through the special grace of Christ. As the vast majority of Jews did not agree with their Christian brethren in this claim, Christianity became a religion of Gentiles to whom, from the second century on, it was forbidden to fulfill the commandments of the Law of Moses – a book which was, at the same time, a part of their Holy Scriptures.

Already then the majority of Christians thought that the Jewish way of life was forbidden even to those Jews who had embraced Christianity, an attitude which later became official in the Church. While anti-Semitism existed before Christianity, Christian anti-Judaism was far more virulent and dangerous. The latter rejected most of the motifs of Greco-Roman anti-Semitism, as these were used also against Christians, but invented new arguments. Most of these existed as early as the first century – some of them have their own roots already in the New Testament – and by the second century we can recognize more or less clearly the whole direction of Christian anti-Judaism. (pp617-618, Origins of Christianity, Magnes Press, 1988, emphases added)

The consequences of Christianity's severance from its roots are apparent not just in differences in community lifestyle but also in the bad fruit of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism. This can be tracked back to the early days of the Christian Church in Jerusalem, gradually strengthening to a parting of the ways by the mid-second century. Wilson puts it this way in Our Father Abraham:

Although a few Jewish Christians apparently still attended synagogue in Jerome's day (ca. A.D. 400), the parting of the way seems to have been finalized by around the middle of the second century. By the time of Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 160) a new attitude prevailed in the Church, evidenced by it appropriating the title "Israel" for itself. Until that time the Church had defined itself more in terms of continuity with the Jewish people; that is, it was an extension of Israel. (p83)

For Reflection and Comment

What can Christians do, without compromising the Gospel message, to restore the perception that disciples of Jesus are joined to the Israel of God?

Next time: Replacement Theology.

Clifford Denton looks at the second Jewish Revolt, in 132 AD, and the impact it had on local Christians and Jews.

In the previous study we summarised the events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Many of Jesus' disciples were living in Jerusalem at the time, and their relationship with the Jewish community was influenced to some extent by the events of the day, especially according to the way the disciples responded to the growing emergency, which many would have seen as fulfillment of prophecy. Let us now consider the period of history that followed.

Between the Revolts

The period between the First and Second Jewish Revolts, 74-132 AD, was a period that saw several changes in Roman Emperors. Vespasian ruled for ten years until 79 AD. His son Titus succeeded him until 81, followed by Domitian until 96, Nerva until 98, Trajan to 117 and Hadrian until 138. These Emperors had different characters. For example, while Domitian was somewhat despotic, Nerva carried more of a social concern. Rome under Trajan and Hadrian was prosperous and well organised. The character of Rome under the different emperors would have its effects on the Jews in the Diaspora and in Judaea.

The period between the First and Second Jewish Revolts saw a succession of different Roman Emperors, each of which governed with a different character.

In the time of Trajan there was something of an uprising among (mainly) the Jews in the Diaspora, called the Quietus War of 115-117. This uprising was so called because it was quelled in Mesopotamia by Lucius Quietus, who cruelly slaughtered thousands of Jews. He was then named procurator of the province of Judaea. It appears that Judaea became a consulate rather than a praetorian province, and it was at this time that it acquired the name Palestine and was policed by two legions rather than one.

Judaea under Quietus

During these years Judaea went through social and economic changes. Jews were expelled from some cities and others were built. After its destruction, the Diaspora Jews were no longer able to come to the Temple for festivals, though pilgrimages were still made by some.

Aspects of religious study continued among new groups, as some of the religious leaders had been careful in their relationship with Rome. The Pharisees gradually disappeared after 70 AD. New groups of Rabbis emerged stressing the importance of study of Torah, there being a need to adjust to the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem. There was also a renewed study of the Oral Traditions. The Rabbis taught a Torah lifestyle and generally worked to earn their own living.

Under leading Rabbis, including Johanan ben Zakkai, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, Ishmael ben Elisha, Gamaliel II, Akiba and Tarfon began a new wave of consolidation of Judaism. One school of Rabbis worked out of Tiberias. Johanan ben Zakkai had obtained permission to work in Jabneh. He and Gamaliel II set up a Bet Din as a continuation of the Sanhedrin. Some steps were made towards the canonisation of the Tanach (Old Testament) by 100 AD and progress was made with the codification of the Oral Traditions into the Mishnah, which was completed around 200 AD. It was also during this period that synagogues sprung up as local centres for meeting, study and prayer.

After the destruction of the Temple, aspects of religious study still continued in Judaea and the Diaspora, with new schools of Rabbis beginning a wave of consolidation of Judaism.

The Second Jewish Revolt

There were a number of contributing factors to the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, which started in 132 AD. Under Hadrian there was a political consolidation of the Empire, rather than an extension. In Israel (at this time called Palestine), Hadrian sought to keep Greek and Jewish inhabitants apart, since there was an inherent tension between the communities. Economically there was deterioration and this especially affected the lives of those who were leaseholders of land.

Historians have discussed other more direct causes. It is considered that a contributing factor was that Hadrian planned to rebuild Jerusalem as a Graeco-Roman city called Aelia Capitolina. He is also, at some stage, thought to have forbidden circumcision (however, some historians see the prohibition of circumcision as a consequence rather than a cause of the revolt). It is quite likely that the re-modeling of Jerusalem was a consequence of Hadrian's visit to the land in 130 AD and so this more likely to have fuelled the revolt under Bar Kokhba in 132 AD than the issue of circumcision. Most of the Rabbis also distanced themselves from the revolutionaries (an exception was Akiba who was later listed among the martyrs).

Guerrilla Warfare

The revolt under Simon Bar Kokhba, considered by some of his followers to be the Messiah, was concentrated mainly in Judaea, and began in the early part of 132. Herodium was captured (among other fortresses) and guerrilla warfare was waged from hideouts including caves. The Roman troops were mainly in Galilee at the outbreak of the revolt and, in the early days in the south, care was taken to avoid an open confrontation with Bar Kokhba. It is likely that the rebels took and held Jerusalem for a period.

Hadrian appointed Julius Severus to put down the revolt and he pursued the rebels so that they were trapped in their hideouts, gradually forcing surrender through lack of food. Some horrendous slaughter took place. One of the last strongholds was Bethar, which was hard to take because of its natural protection by three ravines and a fortified ditch. When it was finally taken, the rebellion had proceeded for three years up to 135.

Bar Kokhba and Rabbi Akiba were among the dead and the tradition is that the final slaughter took place on 9th Av, the date of the fall of both the first and the second Temple. During the revolt, Bar Kokhba and his followers had sought to re-establish the community of Israel and had minted their own coins, but this second major Jewish Revolt was quelled by the Romans just like the first, 60 years earlier.

The rebellion was final put down in 135 AD, and the tradition is that the final slaughter took place on 9th Av, the date of the fall of both the first and the second Temple.

Lasting Consequences

In A History of Israel to Bar Kochba (SCM, 2009) Jagersma writes about the tragic consequences of this conflict (p160):

The Roman victory over Bar Kokhba and his followers must have cost them dearly. This is to be concluded from the fact that in his account of this event to the Roman senate, Hadrian left out the customary formula, 'all is well with me and my legions' (Dio Cassius LXIX 14,3). Moreover, Judaea had suffered so much from the revolt that to all intents and purposes an important province was lost to Rome.

Even more serious were the consequences for the Judaeans themselves. Countless of them were killed in battle, while after the revolt many were sold as slaves. The story even goes that the number of Judaean slaves was so great that in the market in Hebron a Jewish slave did not cost more than a horse.

Jerusalem was now a completely Gentile city under the name of Aelia Capitolina. Judaeans were forbidden to enter the city on pain of death. According to Dio Cassius (LXIX 2,1), a shrine to Jupiter was built on the site of the ruined temple, but this seems far from certain.

In various rabbinic sources it is suggested that during and above all after the revolt there was a religious persecution in Palestine. Circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath and the teaching of the Torah are said to have been forbidden. All we can demonstrate with any certainty is a prohibition of circumcision, since later under Antonius Pius (138-161) the rescinding of such a prohibition is recorded.

After this revolt an extremely hard and difficult time dawned for the Jewish people. Deprived of their political homeland, the Torah was the only bond that held them together. History has shown just how strong this bond has been over the course of time. [emphases added]

Jagersma writes that the Revolt cost both Rome and the Judaeans dearly. Jerusalem was re-built as a Gentile city and Jewish religious practices were banned.

But where were Jewish Christians in this uprising? In Our Father Abraham (p82-83) Marvin Wilson elaborates on the response of Christians to the two Revolts, and the impact this had on Jewish-Christian relations:

As they had in the First Jewish Revolt, the Jewish Christians refused to fight. Failure to assist their countrymen in this final ill-fated drive for national independence alienated them even further from the Jewish community. It also left them more vulnerable to persecution. A second factor which created a significant wedge between the two groups centered on Bar Kokhba. The Jewish Christians had but one Messiah, the risen Jesus of Nazareth, who could command their allegiance. Their loyalty could not be directed to both Yeshua (Jesus) and Simon. Thus commitment to the cause of Bar Kokhba may have "virtually meant a denial of the Messiahship of Jesus." [here quoting from The Jewish People and Jesus Christ, by Jacob Jocz, Baker Book House, 1979]

But in parallel vein, the Jewish community made its own statement to the Jewish Christians by supporting Bar Kokhba's cause. Its allegiance to its own messianic movement, spawned by its own charismatic leader, signaled clearly its final rejection of Jesus as Messiah. Henceforth, this would result in a marked change in missionary activity...Until this point, the pressure for separation of the two communities had come from the Jewish side. But those Jews who believed in Jesus sought to remain within the synagogue, or at the very least, under the religious umbrella of Judaism...But the Second Jewish Revolt forced Jewish Christians to separate themselves from those associated with Bar Kokhba's cause. The impetus for dissociation and detachment came from them and no longer from the other side. [emphases added]

For Reflection and Comment

Can we learn any lessons from the Christian reaction to the Jewish revolts that will help us respond to current conflicts in the Middle East?

How important is it for Christians to study the history of Israel and the Jews?

Next time: The Parting of the Ways.

Clifford Denton discusses the first Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire and the resulting fall of Jerusalem and the razing of the Temple in 70 AD.

In the last study, we considered how the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD contributed to the early separation of the Christian Church from its Jewish roots. This week we continue to look briefly at the background history that preceded and followed this fall, bringing into focus what have come to be called the First and Second Jewish Revolts. We do this both to focus on this important aspect of Israel's history, and also to establish a sense of the context into which Jesus and his followers came.

Background: the Road to Separation

In the last few studies we have been assessing the reasons for the separation of the Christian Church from its Jewish roots, focusing especially on the early years. We have been seeking to establish a balanced understanding, noting that it was not so simple as an exclusion from the Synagogue associated with a curse against Christians. There was initially a more gradual assessment of the new movement within Judaism.

Nevertheless there was also a distinct theological difference caused by the proclamation that Jesus was the expected Messiah. Misunderstandings, as well as theological differences, led to the early Christian Church being kept at arm's length. Elements of separatism from within the Christian Church also began to develop.

Misunderstandings, as well as theological differences, led to the early Church being kept at arm's length by the Jews.

The background to this was Israel's national oppression by Greece and then Rome, and the reactions against this by various Jewish leaders and factions who sought to bring about deliverance by physical force (these attempts then magnified themselves later, when Israel was in the Diaspora and the Christian Church had found new roots within the Gentile world).

In particular, the First and Second Jewish Revolts against Rome help us to understand the response of the nation of Israel to the colonial domination of foreign powers. Despite Israel as a whole rejecting Jesus as Messiah, these revolts continued to express the Jewish Messianic hope. They expected that the Messiah would bring physical deliverance for the nation. This mindset contrasted greatly with the message of Jesus and the apparent 'otherworldliness' of his movement, and further contributed to the separation of the Christian Church from its Jewish roots.

The Messianic hope of the Jews, especially in the face of Roman colonial domination, contrasted Jesus' otherworldly message and forced Christians and Jews further apart.

The First Jewish RevoltHalf Shekel from the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (see Photo Credits)

The First Jewish Revolt was from 66-74 AD. This was the revolt that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. One of the main historical sources for this event is the historian Josephus who was an eye witness and participant (see quotes from Josephus included in last week's study). Modern historians warn us that there may be some bias in Josephus's description of the revolt because of his own need to protect his status in the eyes of Rome. Nevertheless, we have detailed accounts of the years when Israel rose up against Rome and of the catastrophes that followed.

Among the reasons for the revolt was hatred toward the corruption and bad government of various Roman procurators, as well as a general resentment towards the occupying forces. Add to this the social, economic, national and religious restraints that Rome put on this covenant nation and here was a fermenting situation ready for eruption at any time.

The First Jewish Revolt, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, was born of resentment towards the occupying power.

Discontent eventually led to a dispute between Greeks and Jews in Caesarea when some of the Greek population chose to build too close to a Synagogue. This was in the year 61 AD, and Nero ruled in favour of the Greeks, but discontent continued and flared up into street fighting in 66 AD. Coincident with this, the procurator Florus ordered that seventeen talents be taken from the Temple treasury, causing an aggressive response from some of the Jews and resulting in his ordering Roman soldiers to punish the population. The resistance grew, however, causing Florus to make a temporary retreat to Caesarea.

The remaining cohort of troops in Jerusalem failed to enforce law and order and this also became the spark for groups of revolutionaries including the Sicari and Zealots to begin more open fighting with the Romans. Fervour that had been pent up for years erupted, and soon the majority of the population of Judaea and Galilee joined these revolutionary groups. By the year 67, the Idumeaeans and Samaritans had also joined the growing revolt.

Roman Intervention

Agrippa II came from Alexandria to Jerusalem to try to quell the revolt but failed to get the support of Florus for mediation. In the early days of the revolt, the High Priest and leaders of the parties of the Sadducees and Pharisees were concerned to maintain peace and the Temple rituals, so were keen to bring a peaceful end to the uprising. However, the Zealots conquered a number of fortresses including Masada. They occupied the Temple and put an end to the daily sacrifice to the Emperor of Rome.

Agrippa summoned three thousand troops but failed to eliminate the Zealots. This led to an escalation of the conflict with Rome. The Zealots set fire to the palaces of Agrippa, Berenice and the High Priest. This was by way of a statement against the disparity between the wealthy in Jerusalem and the poverty of other members of the nation. The Antonia Fortress was captured and then the whole city was liberated from the Romans. This was accompanied by bloodshed in other parts of the land.

The conflict escalated and even the intervention of 3,000 Roman troops failed.

Cestius Valus, the Roman Governor of Syria, brought an expedition to Jerusalem in the autumn of 66 but was caused to retreat and suffered major defeat near Beth-Horon, where most of his army was massacred. This resulted in a growing support for the revolt, including from the priests in Jerusalem who needed to preserve their popularity.

The Arrival of Vespasian

The Romans re-grouped in Galilee. Meanwhile, Nero sent orders from Greece to his general, Vespasian. He arrived in 67 and took the city of Sephoris, then advancing with three legions into Galilee, putting many of the Jews to flight. The prominent fortress of Jotapata was taken, followed by Tarichaea, Gamla (see left) and Mount Tabor. At the end of 67, and after great bloodshed, Galilee was under the control of the Romans.

The loss of Galilee was dispiriting to the occupants of Jerusalem. Some would have negotiated with the Romans at this point. There was inner conflict among the Jewish factions and the Zealots eventually took full control of the city. In 69 AD, however, further disputes arose and three factions emerged in Jerusalem. The Roman troops marched on Jerusalem, by which time the three factions had divided the city into three fortresses.

When the Romans laid siege on Jerusalem in 70 AD, inner conflict had led to the city being divided into three fortresses.

The death of Nero in 68 called Vespasian back to Rome in the summer of 69, where he was proclaimed Emperor. Titus, his son, took command of the Roman troops in the land of Israel (as an important aside, within the time-frame of this conflict: it is likely that Johanan Ben Zakkai fled from Jerusalem and was given permission by Vespasian to settle in Jabneh, which later became a school for the study of Torah and the centre for the development of Rabbinic Judaism). Nevertheless the siege of Jerusalem was begun early in the year 70 by Titus and the horrific consequences of the fall of this great city and of the Temple followed, as we outlined in the last section.

One can read Josephus and come to the conclusion that divided factions among the Jews contributed to an almost self-destruction at the end of this conflict. The glory had indeed departed from the Temple.

For Reflection and Comment

Read Matthew 24:2 and Deuteronomy 28. Does this help us understand the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70? Read Luke 19:41-44 and refer to the Book of Lamentations. What should a Christian's attitude be to the fall of Jerusalem?

Next time: The Jewish Revolts (Part 2)

Clifford Denton examines the historical conquest of Israel by Rome and its creation of the Israeli diaspora.

Every Bible student needs a grasp of history and to set this alongside the purposes of God as revealed in Scripture. What was happening on the world stage when Jesus was alive, and in the first years of the Church's existence?

Roman Occupation

This is the background to the Roman domination of Israel preceding the biblical account of Jesus and the Apostles.

In the years before Rome, the Greek Empire dominated Israel. There was resistance from the Maccabees, a group of Jewish rebels, during this time. The years that followed saw the rise of the Hasmoneans as a priest-king dynasty in Israel, but which did not restore Israel as a truly Torah-based society.

Rome grew as the new world power and it was in the year 63 BC that the legions under Pompey entered Israel. Jagersma's account of Pompey's arrival (History of Israel to Bar Kochba, SCM Press 1985, p98) reads:

Bust of General Pompey[While] the Roman general Pompey was busy with his successful campaign in Asia (66-62 BC); one of his generals, Scaurus, had captured Damascus for him in 65 BC. Soon after that he turned his attention to Judaea. At about that time delegations came from both Aristobulus and Hyrcanus [two rival Hasmonean princes] to ask for his help. Both offered him gifts. On this occasion the Romans opted for Aristobulus.

In 63 BC Pompey himself arrived in Damascus. There not only delegations from Aristobulus and Hyrcanus but also representatives of the people of Judaea came to him. These last asked Pompey to abolish the Hasmonaean dynasty because they wanted to be ruled by priests.

At the time of this meeting Pompey did not make any decision...Arisobulus was least happy with the delay. He...established himself in the fortress of Alexandrium to make his position secure. This action aroused the wrath of Pompey, who immediately invaded Judaea. Aristobulus quickly surrendered, but most of his supporters refused.

Pompey then went back to Jerusalem and besieged the city. Hyrcanus and his followers opened the gates to the Romans, who were then able to occupy the city and the royal palace. However, a group of the supporters of Aristobulus, who had already been taken prisoner, occupied the temple. Only after a siege of three months did the temple fall into the hands of the Romans. To the dismay of the pious, on this occasion Pompey entered the Holy of Holies.

Pompey led Aristobulus and numerous Judaean prisoners through Rome in triumphal procession by which he celebrated his return. When they were later freed, the latter formed the beginning of a great Jewish community there.

The weak Hyrcanus II was eventually made the High Priest, and political rule was given to his powerful advisor, Antipater. Antipater's sons Phaesel and Herod (later Herod the Great) were given the task of governing Jerusalem and Galilee respectively, and the Romans gathered tax from Judaea. In 43 AD, Herod showed his allegiance to Rome by opposing an insurrection in Galilee and then opposing and undermining the Sanhedrin.

The Fall of the Temple

Jesus had made it clear that the Temple would fall:

...the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down. (Luke 21:6)

This prophecy came to pass in 70 AD, during the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 AD. This was the first of three major revolts by Judean Jews against the Roman Empire, brought on by religious and political tensions. It will be discussed in more detail next week). Josephus gives a graphic account of the Temple's fall:

And now two of the legions had completed their banks on the eighth day of Lous. Whereupon Titus gave orders that the battering-rams should be brought and set over against the western edifice of the inner temple; for before these were brought, the firmest of all the other engines had battered the wall for six days together without ceasing, without making any impression upon it; but the vast largeness and strong connexion of the stones was superior to that engine, and to the other battering rams also...

...and now the soldiers had already put fire to the gates, and the silver that was over them quickly carried the flames to the wood that was within it, whence it spread itself all on the sudden, and caught hold of the cloisters. Upon the Jews seeing this fire all about them, their spirits sunk, together with their bodies, and they were under such astonishment that not one of them made any haste either to defend himself or to quench the fire, but they stood mute spectators of it only...

While the holy house was on fire, everything was plundered that came to hand, and ten thousand of those that were caught were slain; nor was there a commiseration of any age, or any reverence of gravity ; but children, and old men, and profane persons, and priests, were all slain in the same manner..." (Quoted from The Wars of the Jews)

Model of the Second Temple, destroyed in 70 AD.Temple Mount today.Jagersma summarises this sad event in Israel's history too (p144):

In early 70 Titus began the siege of Jerusalem...Titus had in all four legions and auxiliaries for this siege. The beginning of the siege fell some weeks before Passover.

The Romans began by attacking the northernmost wall. In military terms this side was always the most vulnerable part of the city to defend...three weeks later the Romans had the whole of the inner city in their hands. Meanwhile a pressing lack of food in the city made itself felt. That of course was disastrous to the morale of the defenders.

The focal point of the dispute now shifted to the temple mount with the citadel of Antonia and the upper city. When the defenders succeeded in destroying the entrenchments which the Romans threw up against the wall Titus had a stone wall put round the whole city. This was done in three days. Shortly after that the Romans were able to capture the citadel of Antonia in a night attack; it was then completely destroyed.

A great blow to the morale of the besieged was the day when the offering of the daily morning and evening sacrifice had to be stopped. From that day on the temple was only a fortress. At the cost of very severe losses Titus succeeded in gradually getting it into his hands. According to Josephus, Titus wanted to spare the temple. This does not sound very plausible, since such an action would go against the usual military practices of his time. Be this as it may, the temple went up in flames. This event is still recalled in the synagogue on 9 Av (about August). [emphases added]

After the fall of the Temple the upper city of Jerusalem was taken, the whole battle lasting five months and wreaking terrible destruction, evidence of which can still be found today. 700 young Jews were paraded in Rome. Others were put to work in mines in Egypt or sold as slaves. The triumphal march of Titus in Rome is depicted on the Arch of Titus in the city and can be seen today. He took with him the Menorah and the Table of Shewbread from the temple.

Some Jewish families fled to the fortress at Masada near the southern shores of the Dead Sea, where they were surrounded by the Roman army who gradually ascended the mountain. In the year 73 or 74 the families took a suicide pact as their capture and humiliation became certain. So ended the devastation of Israel. The Temple, and hence Israel's religious and national centre, was lost, sacrifices ceased and a new Jewish Diaspora began.Stone outline of Roman encampment, viewable from Masada.The location of the Masada fortress.

Impact on Early Christianity

The fall of the City of Jerusalem and of the Temple in 70 AD coincided with the early days of the community of disciples in Jerusalem and the spread of the Gospel to the Gentile world. The Council of Jerusalem had taken place 20 years earlier. Paul's three missionary journeys had already taken place and both he and Peter had suffered martyrdom in Rome.

The majority of the New Testament Scriptures had been written. The Christian Church was a visible body within the world of Judaism. Theological issues had arisen and the separation from the Synagogue had begun.

The destruction of the Temple contributed to this separation. In the final chapter of his book A House Divided: The Parting of the Ways between Synagogue and Church (Paulist Press, 1995), Vincent Martin writes:

The reaction to the catastrophe of 70 C.E. among Jews and Christians proved to be diametrically opposite. The Jews rejected the NEW and the Christians rejected the OLD. The Jews affirmed that salvation for Israel could be found only by upholding in its pure form the Sinaitic Covenant; the Christians proclaimed that salvation for Israel, and the Gentiles, could be found only in the eternal covenant established through the risen Jesus.

Judaism...was unique, clearly distinct from all other religious systems. Totally God-centered, it had a deeply humanistic quality emphasizing ethical and social values. It was a "classical" religion, moderate, measurable, seeking harmony with nature, bursting with love of life and joy – when not punished by the Lord.

Suddenly, the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth with its more radical aspects, the proclamation by the Twelve that the same Jesus was truly risen inaugurated the heavenly Jerusalem, and the reaching out of Saul of Tarsus toward the Gentiles, all seemed to destroy the delicate equilibrium God had built through centuries of patience and inspiration. Not only did these novelties not correspond to the actual messianic expectations of the common people, but they were changing the focus of traditional Jewish life from covenantal justice toward gratuitous love, from concern with this world toward concern with the world to come, and from nationalism toward universalism. Such new perspectives were not essentially anti-Jewish, or completely foreign to Judaism, but they were stretching Temple Judaism to its limits and even beyond its limits.

Martin goes on to distinguish out various reactions to Jesus and the early Church from within the Jewish community, and shows how the political situation at the time framed these different responses:

To understand the reaction of the Jewish people to this new teaching, we must carefully separate the reaction of the Sadducean party in control of the Temple, and indirectly of the nation, from the general reaction of the people. The colonial situation, the fear of the Romans, and the will to maintain a grip on political power, led to an unavoidable conflict at first between the religious establishment and Jesus of Nazareth, and later his Galilean disciples. As the Sadducees lost all power after the burning of the Temple, the general reaction of the Pharisees and the common people remained the most significant response. Originally it was not negative. It was rather a feeling of uncertainty concerning the imminent coming of a hoped for messianic event mixed with a deep uneasiness at experiencing cherished traditions stretched beyond acceptable limits.

It is principally Pauline evangelism which started to transform an attitude of respect, curiosity and distance into a negative reaction. The sense of self-identity and the struggle for national survival in difficult political circumstances brought forth a great fear that the dissolution of Torah Judaism into an a-temporal and universal Judaism would strike down the dividing wall carefully constructed by Ezra and would finally destroy the integrity of the nation. The leaders of the Diaspora dreaded that Paul would attract many Jews to this strange and easier kind of Judaism; they were deeply offended at the manipulation of Jewish sanctities by uncircumcised Gentiles. This time it was not a matter of systematic doubt or suspended judgment but of a religious injury that needed an antagonistic answer. (ibid, p178-179, emphases added)

For Study and Prayer:

What should a Christian's attitude be to the dispersion of the Jews over nearly 2,000 years - and to the restoration of Israel today?

Next time: The Jewish Revolts

Clifford Denton begins a two-part study on what happened to Jews and Christians under the rule of Rome.

Every nation needs its own land. It is within its land that a nation establishes its particular way of life. Part of God's covenant with Israel was to give them the Land of Canaan. The people would be kept safe in this land providing that they followed the ways of God revealed through Moses. However, at their low times, Israel came under the rule of other nations.

This was the case at the time of Jesus and his first disciples: Rome ruled Israel. The climax of Roman occupation came with the fall of the Temple in AD 70. This coincided with the early days of the spread of the Gospel and so contributed to the separation of the Christian Church from its Jewish roots.

People and Land

After the wilderness years following their deliverance from Egypt, the children of Israel finally inherited their own land. Under Joshua they took possession of the Land of Canaan and established the nation, first under the judges and then under the kings. This was in fulfillment of the covenant promise given to Abraham:

On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates --the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites. (Gen 15:18-21)

The conditions that the Lord gave for Israel's ongoing possession of the Promised Land were made clear through Moses. It is important to remember the precise terms of this Covenant.

Blessings for obedience:Man tending grain, Israel.

Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the Lord your God:

Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the country. Blessed shall be the fruit of your body, the produce of your ground and the increase of your herds, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out.

The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before your face; they shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways. (Deut 28:1-7)

Curses for disobedience:

But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country. Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Cursed shall be the fruit of your body and the produce of your land, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks. Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out. The Lord will send on you cursing, confusion, and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, because of the wickedness of your doings in which you have forsaken Me...

The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies; you shall go out one way against them and flee seven ways before them; and you shall become troublesome to all the kingdoms of the earth...

Your ox shall be slaughtered before your eyes, but you shall not eat of it; your donkey shall be violently taken away from before you, and shall not be restored to you; your sheep shall be given to your enemies, and you shall have no one to rescue them. Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, and your eyes shall look and fail with longing for them all day long; and there shall be no strength in your hand. A nation whom you have not known shall eat the fruit of your land and the produce of your labor, and you shall be only oppressed and crushed continually. (Deut 28:15-33)

These are not words to treat lightly. Christians should not stand in judgment over Israel, and use these words to support a persecution mentality towards Jews. It is in God's hands alone to work out his purposes according to the covenant that he made. He placed Israel at the centre of his covenant plan for the whole world. God's purposes are far higher, more complex and more loving than most of us realise, and so we must be careful how we read some of the harder scriptures, lest we misunderstand. Indeed, it is the role of those grafted into the Israel of God to comfort and pray for Israel the nation.

The covenant blessings and curses mentioned in Deuteronomy 28 are not words to treat lightly, but Christians should also be careful to not stand in judgment over Israel.

Israel itself must understand her own destiny as a nation and be aware of the covenant conditions that God has made. It is not for us to interfere in some of the major issues between Israel and God, especially regarding judgment. Indeed, we have already noted how this is understood by some leaders and interpreters of Torah. For example, in Popular Halachah: A Guide to Jewish Living,¹ we read in the chapter entitled Serving the Creator:

Because of the sins of our forefathers, we were driven from our land, the land of Israel. Exile, dispersion and suffering caused many of our people to neglect the study of the holy language (Hebrew), to forget the Torah and to assimilate among the gentiles. But God has promised the eternity of the Jewish people: "And yet for all that, though they be in the land of their enemies, will I not cast them away, neither will I abhor them to destroy them utterly, nor will I break my covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God." (Leviticus 26:44) And it is said: "For I, the Lord, I have not changed; and you, sons of Jacob, you have not ceased to be." (Malachi 3:6)

Go forth and search for the nations of old; where are they today? They have vanished! Not so the people of Israel who live on forever more. What is the secret of their survival? There is but one answer: The Torah! "And you who cleave unto the Lord your god, you are alive, everyone of you, to this day." (Deuteronomy 4:4) Our sages explained it this way: The children of Israel who clung to God, the Source of Life, have come to possess life everlasting.

If Israel would return to God in true repentance, then will He fulfill unto us His promise which He gave us through the prophets, His servants, to gather in the remaining exiles from the four corners of the earth, to restore us to the land of our inheritance, and bring us the Messiah who will rebuild the Temple and restore Divine Worship and the holy mountain, in Jerusalem.

These covenant issues are between Israel and God alone. Indeed, when God has brought enemies to rule over Israel these enemies are on their own path to God's judgment. This, for example, is what we understand from the prophet Daniel. Right up to the end times, the nations that come against Israel will eventually be judged by God. In Daniel 11:45-12:1, we read of the antichrist movement of the last days:

...he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and no one will help him. At that time Michael shall stand up, the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book.

When God has brought enemies to rule over Israel, these enemies are also on their own path to God's judgment, and will eventually fall.

Historically, the nations of Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome came against Israel. They are now no more, while Israel survives and goes on to the end time purposes of God. Those who come against Israel have already built up reasons for God's judgements on themselves.

Nebuchadnezzar had a dream where he saw an image of a statue representing the world empires that would be used in Israel's history (see right). They would all disappear. The gold head represented Babylon, the silver upper body depicted the Medes and Persia, the bronze lower body stood for Greece and the iron legs were Rome (the feet of iron and clay represent the empire of last days).

It was into this context that Jesus, when Israel was under Roman rule, predicted the fall of the Temple and yet also, in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 12, spoke of the continued purposes of God for Israel outworked through suffering.

For Study and Prayer

• Study Deuteronomy 28, 2 Chronicles 7:12-14, Jeremiah 31:31-37, Romans 11. What is the relevance of these covenant principles to the fall of the Temple in 70 AD?
• How should this make us reflect on Britain's relationship with the nation of Israel?

Next time: The Fall of Israel under Rome (Part 2)

References

1 Edited by Avnere Tomaschoff, and sponsored by the World Conference of Jewish Organisations (1985)

The family in Britain has undergone a revolutionary change since the beginning of last century, and is weaker than ever before. Clifford Hill discusses what we can learn from the early days of Christianity.

The family in Britain has undergone a revolutionary change since the beginning of last century. In the Victorian era the family was large and consisted of several generations. Children usually had a number of siblings as well as cousins and second cousins and aunties and uncles as well as parents and grandparents. The family was a community that gave identity, support and security to both children and adults.

Family life in Britain today has probably never been weaker. Many children do not even know their own grandparents and many could not name their cousins or second cousins. We are rapidly becoming a nation of individuals who lack identity and security, partly accounting for high levels of depression in British society.

Family life in Britain today has probably never been weaker. There is much we can learn from the early days of the Church, when people from all walks of life were drawn together as a family."

There is much that we can learn from the development of Christianity in its earliest days when people from all walks of life and from different ethnic communities shared a common experience of Jesus which drew them together as a family where they felt loved and valued.

Time of Transition

Roman society in the first century AD was in transition from a Republic to an Empire: from being governed by an elected Senate to coming under the control of an Emperor (a dictator). It was a time of social turmoil in which the one constant factor was the family. It was the family unit that gave stability to the whole Greco-Roman world in a time of great uncertainty.

The family at that time of transition was nothing like the family we know today in our Western civilisation. It was also nothing like the extended family in Victorian England or in African society. The family in Greco-Roman society was a household consisting of blood relatives, adopted children, servants and slaves. The larger households also included wage labourers at one end of the social scale and 'friends' at the other end.

Friends

The 'friends' were extremely high status, enjoying great prestige due to their close and intimate relationship with the head of the family, to whom they acted as counsellors and advisers. When Jesus conferred this title upon his disciples, he was paying them the highest tribute possible. He was sharing his inner thoughts with them; taking them fully into his confidence:

I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. (John 15:15)

Clearly, Jesus was fully familiar with the household structure of Roman society in making this statement. He knew that the highest status in Rome was to be called a 'Friend of Caesar'.

In Roman households, 'friends' enjoyed extremely high status, close intimacy with the head of the family and full confidence."

Adopted Children

The adoption of children played a large part in Greco-Roman society. The adopted child also enjoyed a privileged position within the family and a high status in society. There were six principles of adoption in Greek and Roman society, all of which have spiritual significance for us today (see also Paul's teaching in Galatians). These six principles are:

• The adopted child is considered a true son or daughter– as true as one born by blood
• The adoptive father promises to support the child and provide their daily necessities
• The adopted child cannot be repudiated by the adoptive father
• The adopted child cannot be reduced to slavery
• The adopted child cannot be reclaimed by his natural father
• By the adoption the child is constituted an heir of the adoptive father

Adopted children in Greco-Roman society were immensely privileged. They were considered true sons and daughters- true heirs –secure and provided for, and unable to be reclaimed by their natural father."

Paul had all of these principles in his mind when he declared to the Gentile Christians "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:26). He reinforced this with the statement "So you are no longer a slave, but a son: and since you are son, God has made you also an heir" (Gal 4:7). For a Jew to make this statement to the Gentiles was of huge significance! Paul was saying that because God had adopted them, they were actually more secure in the love of the Father than if they had been born Jews! What a wonderful re-assurance this is! God has actually chosen us and adopted us into his family!

Pater Familias

In Roman society the 'Pater Familias' (head of the family) was the ruler of his household. In large households he had enormous power. This was necessary in order to preserve unity within the family and to ensure its smooth working. Jesus was quite familiar with this kind of household, as is seen in his parable of the 'Unmerciful Servant' where the householder exercised absolute power (Matt 18:21-35). The unity of the household-family was essential for its survival which is reflected in Jesus' statement, "Every household divided against itself will not stand" (Matt 12:25).

The unity of the household-family was essential for its survival. Members had to be totally committed and share everything with each other, including their faith."

Family Unity

In order to preserve the unity of the family it was essential that they should share a common faith or religious commitment. When the head of the household became a Christian it was expected that the whole family would adopt the same faith, as when the Philippian jailer was converted. Luke's account of Paul and Silas praying and singing in prison that led to the jailer's conversion says "At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds: then immediately he and all his family were baptised" (Acts 16:33).

Early Church Model

It was this large household-family that became the model for the Early Church in New Testament times and for several centuries beyond. Jesus was the Head and all the members shared a common belief. They met in one another's homes and shared their food at a 'common meal' as they would in any family home, and there was love, loyalty, and commitment to each other.

Community of Believers

Since they were all adopted children, they were all of the same status in the family. There was no 'one-upmanship'. Their loyalty to the Head of the family – to Jesus, who had rescued them from a crooked generation steeped in the evil practices of darkness - had brought them into the kingdom of light. When they came together their joy overflowed in praise and thanksgiving. The risen Jesus was the Head of the family, the leader of the community. "Jesus is Lord!" was constantly upon their lips.

They were a community of believers; they were family- what a model for us! It would seem that in Britain today, everything conspires against this sort of living. Faith is lived out privately, behind closed doors. Lives are too busy to be deeply shared. Families are broken, far-flung and fluid. But where there is challenge, there is also opportunity for the light of the Gospel to shine- and shine it will, if we let it, in the growing darkness. This doesn't mean that Christians need to have 'perfect' nuclear families (indeed, the early Church model wasn't 'nuclear' at all). It means opening our doors wide to share our lives and our faith with others, in the love of Christ and the unifying power of the Holy Spirit.